WSRt, critical thinking - a summary of all articles needed in the second block of second year psychology at the uva
- 1853 reads
Join with a free account for more service, or become a member for full access to exclusives and extra support of WorldSupporter >>
Critical thinking
Article: Marewski, & Olsson, (2009)
Beyond the null ritual, formal modeling of psychological processes
Rituals can be characterized by a range of attributes including:
Each of these characteristics is reflected in null hypothesis significance testing.
One good way to make theories more precise is to cast them as formal models.
In doing so, researchers can move beyond the problems of null hypothesis significance testing, and simple difference searching.
In the broadest sense, a model is a simplified representation of the world that aims to explain observed data.
A model is a formal instantiation of a theory that specifies the theory’s predictions. This category also includes statistical tools, such as structural equation or regression models.
Statistical tools are not typically meant to mirror the workings of psychological mechanisms.
What is the scope of Modeling?
Modeling is not meant to be applied equally to all research questions. Each method has its specific advantages and disadvantages.
Modeling helps researchers answer involved questions and understand complex phenomena.
In psychology, modeling is especially suited for basic and applied research about the cognitive system.
Four closely interrelated benefits of increasing the precision of theories by casting them as models:
Designing strong tests of theories
Models provide the bridge between theories and empirical evidence.
They enable researchers to make competing quantitative predictions, which in turn lead to strong comparative tests of theories.
Any quantitative prediction can be systematically better or worse than any other.
But, as soon as one starts to compare quantitative predictions from different models, the use of null hypothesis testing can become inappropriate or meaningless.
Sharpening research questions
Null hypothesis tests are often used to evaluate verbal, informal theories.
But, in such theories are underspecified, then they can be used post hoc, to ‘explain’ almost any observed empirical pattern.
In the worst case, they become one-word explanations, labels that are broad in meaning and vague, and therefore, provide little or not specification of the underlying mechanisms or theoretical structure.
Formal quantitative predictions are often not easy to grasp by intuitive reasoning.
Frequently, the predictions being made by models can only be understood by running computer simulations.
Often it is only when one starts modeling that one learns what a theory really predicts, and what it cannot account for, pointing to overlooked research problems.
The goal of modeling is not only to find out which of competing explanations for data is preferred, but also to sharpen the questions to be asked.
Going beyond linear theories
Many null hypothesis significance tests are only suited for the evaluation of simple hypotheses.
This, in turn, encourages the formulation of hypotheses hat can be subjected to such tests.
Even though a general linear model represents a precise methodological tool, it might not be the best starting point for theory building.
Using more externally valid designs to study real-world questions
Just as the general linear model and null hypothesis significance tests are often inadequate for conceptualizing and evaluating a theory, factorial designs can lead to tests of theories under conditions that have little to do with the world outside of the laboratory, which is where the explanatory power of theories should be proved.
Factorial designs can destroy the natural covariation of variables, making it difficult to generalize from them to a world where organisms exploit the confounded relations between different pieces of information.
A lack of external validity may be one reason why much basic research in psychology is of little use in the applied, real world.
Modeling allows researchers to deal with natural confounds without destroying them, they can be built into the models.
Modeling provides ways to increase the precision of theories.
In doing so, it helps researchers to quantify the explanatory power of their ideas, allowing them to select between competing accounts of data without having to rely exclusively on the null ritual.
To conclude that one model provides a better account of data than another based on R2 or other standard goodness-of-fit indices might be reasonable if psychological measurements were noise free.
In science, noise-free data are practically impossible to obtain.
Researchers are confronted with the problem of disentangling the variation in data that is the result of noise from the variation that is the result of the psychological process of interest.
Goodness-of-fit measures alone cannot make this distinction. As a result, a model can end up overfitting the data, it can also capture the variance that comes from error.
Generalizability: the ability of a model to predict new data. The degree to which it is capable of predicting all potential samples generated by the same process, rather dan to fit only a particular sample of existing data.
The degree to which a model is susceptible to overfitting is related to the model’s complexity. That is, a model’s inherent flexibility that enables it to fit diverse patterns of data.
Two factors contribute to a model’s complexity:
The dilemma is: increased complexity makes a model more likely to end up overfitting the data while its generalizability to new data decreases.
At the same time a model’s generalizability can also increase positively with the model’s complexity, but only to the point at which the model is complex enough to capture systematic variations in the data. Beyond that point, additional complexity can result in decreases in generalizability, because then the model may also start to absorb random variations in data.
A good fit to existing data does not necessarily imply good generalizability to new data, which can make it hard to tell which of two models provides a better explanation for data.
There are many complications that can arise when designing and testing models
Sometimes, different criteria may not unanimously favour the same model, making it difficult to determine which model is the best.
Model selection is no ritual with fixed guidelines. It is an exercise that requires careful decision making on the part of the researcher.
This is a summary of the articles and reading materials that are needed for the second block in the course WSR-t. This course is given to second year psychology students at the Uva. This block is about analysing and evaluating psychological research. The order in which the
...There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Main summaries home pages:
Main study fields:
Business organization and economics, Communication & Marketing, Education & Pedagogic Sciences, International Relations and Politics, IT and Technology, Law & Administration, Medicine & Health Care, Nature & Environmental Sciences, Psychology and behavioral sciences, Science and academic Research, Society & Culture, Tourisme & Sports
Main study fields NL:
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
2017 |
Add new contribution