Chapter 2: Doing Social Psychology Research Study Sheet

This chapter discusses social psychological research processes (how ideas are born and developed and how to begin the
research process) as well as social psych ethics and values.
Social psych poses questions on the courses of relationships, efficiency of working in groups and regret of action vs.
inaction.

How can social behavior (variable as it is) be studied scientifically?

1) Why learn about research methods?

 It is easier to understand and remember rest of material in book  if one reads about findings by a social
psychologist without having hard evidence to back them, one is more likely to have difficulty remembering what
was actually finding from what one inferred from it  i.e. help distinguish correct from plausible (yet incorrect)
answers
 Can improve reasoning about real-life events
 Can make you better consumer  much of info given by media and adds turns out to be wrong or misleading 
trains us to look for evidence behind claims, i.e. puts us in a better position to critically evaluate info to which we
are exposed and separate fact from fiction

2) Developing ideas: beginning the research process

Research process = coming up with ideas, refining them, testing them, interpreting meaning of results obtained

a. Asking questions
Asking questions is beginning of all social psych study, a question can come from any distressing, curious or funny
observed event just as it can come from reading previous studies made by prior social psychologists (ex: Solomon Asch
read Muzafer Sherif’s demo on how individuals conform to others in groups when making judgment about weird
stimulus, which inspired Asch to study how people conform to a group even when perfectly clear that group is wrong)

b. Searching the literature

 Important to verify what research has already been done on a specific topic before engaging further
 Best way is by using electronic database of published research (for psych: PsycArticles and PsycINFO)
 Treeing = going from article to article = valuable in searching info on related topics
 This process may even tweak the researcher’s initial question by adding precision

c. Hypotheses and Theories

Hypothesis = explicit, testable prediction about conditions under which an even will occur (ex: “teenage boys are more
likely to be aggressive toward others if they have just played a violent video game for an hour than if they played a non
violent game for an hour”)
Theory = an organized set of principles used to explain observed phenomena (usually evaluated in terms of simplicity,
comprehensiveness and generativity or the ability to generate new hypotheses)  comes after initial hypotheses have
proliferated and initial data has been collected
Social psychologists rely on precise mini-theories rather than large, all-encompassing ones (ex: Daryl Bem’s theory on
self-perception applied only to specific situations where people make inferences about own actions rather than be
applicable to all situations  though more limited, it did generate specific testable hypothesis)
Good theories often inspire additional research, or stimulate studies designed to test various aspects of theory as well as
specific hypotheses derived from them
Accurate theory is worthless without testability just as a theory can strongly contribute to the field despite turning out to
be wrong (through further research it inspires)
Fate of all scientific theories is to be criticized and surpassed

d. Basic and applied research

Is testing a theory the purpose of research in social psych?
Basic research = seeks to increase our understanding of human behavior, often by testing a hypothesis based on a theory
Applied research = makes use of social psych theories/methods to enlarge our understanding of naturally occurring
events and to contribute to solution of social problems
Social psychologist alternate between the two, Kurt Lewin encouraged basic researchers to get engaged in larger social
problems and applied researchers to recognize importance of good theories

3) Refining ideas: defining and measuring social psychological variables

Process of defining and measuring variables is not always strait forward (ex: defining “alcohol intoxication” and
“aggression” when studying effects of alcohol intoxication on aggression)
 a. Conceptual variables and operational definitions: from the abstract to the specific
When researchers develop hypotheses, variables are typically in abstract form (= conceptual variables, ex: prejudice,
conformity, attraction)
These variables must be transformed into variables that can be manipulated or measured = operational definition of a
variable
Operational definition = specific procedure for manipulating or measuring a conceptual variable
There are several ways of measuring a specific variable (ex: intoxication might be measured through blood alcohol level
or depending on whether the participant verbally indicates drunkenness)
Construct validity = used to evaluate the manipulation and measurement of variables using the extent to which
manipulations in an experiment really manipulate conceptual variables they were designed to and the extent to which the
measures used in a study really measure the conceptual variables they were designed to measure.

b. Measuring variables: using self-reports, observations and technology

Self-reports = going strait to source  participants disclose thoughts, feelings, desires, actions through sets of questions
that measure a single conceptual variable (ex: Rosenberg self esteem scale = set of questions that measure individual’s
overall self-esteem) = largely used scale and considered to have good construct validity  self reports are biased and thus
can be misleading and inaccurate despite giving insight into an individual’s perceptions as people often want to make
themselves look good in front of others (ex: bogus pipeline experiment where people who believe there is infallible
method of detecting lies tell truth more readily)  self reports are also affected by manner in which question is posed (ex:
effectiveness of condoms against AIDS, when condoms were said to have 95% success rate 88% of participants indicated
that they thought condoms to be effective whereas only 42% did so when condoms were said to have a 5% failure rate) 
even exact same question can sire different responses depending on context  time lapse and memory recognition is also
major issue in confirming validity of a participant’s statement, some psychologists use interval-contingent report, where
respondents report their experiences at regular intervals or signal contingent self-reports where respondents report
experiences a.s.a.p. after being signaled to do so usually through beeper or even event-contingent self-reports where
respondents report directly after event (ex: Rochester Interaction Record = event-contingent self-report questionnaire used
by respondents recording every social interaction lasting ten minutes or more during course of study)
Narrative studies = collect lengthy responses on a general topic which is then analyzed in terms of a coding scheme
Observations = when researchers observe people’s actions  can be strait forward or can require intermediary of an
inter-rater reliability = level of agreement among multiple observers of the same behavior  advantage = avoid passing
through erroneous recollections of individual, thus in some way more reliable BUT if individuals know they are being
observed can also impact their own behavior (therefore, in certain experiments participants were lied to in order to better
study them)
Technology = advances in technology offer researchers new tools with which to measure physiological responses 
computers used to record speed of response to stimuli  most recently, brain image technology such as functional
magnetic resonance imaging allows researchers to study which part of the brain is active while the participant thinks, acts,
responds to audio-visual stimuli (used in detecting subtle signs of racism or sexism within people, when participants show
increased activity in parts of brain associated with feelings of threat when see pictures of people from particular racial
group or gender)

4) Testing Ideas: Research Design

Qualitative research = collection of data through open-ended responses, observation and interviews
Quantitative research = collection of numerical data through objective testing and statistical analysis
Researchers don’t seek out evidence to support ideas, but rather test ideas in ways that could clearly prove them wrong 
usually done through experimental approach  other approach is correlational approach, where emphasis is put on
associations between two variables without establishing cause and effect  this approach is descriptive research, notably
used in opinion polls, ratings, box scores, etc…

a. Descriptive research: discovering trends and tendencies

Goal is describe people and their thoughts, feelings (ex: can test questions such as: what percentage of people who
encounter someone lying on sidewalk would offer to help?)  methods include observing people, studying records of
past events, behaviors, and surveying people

Observational Studies: learning about other people simply by observing (ex: Hawkins research on bullying among
schoolchildren in Canada, how common is it? How often do peers step in to defend another child?  Researchers used
hidden cameras and mikes to observe children and found that bullying was much more pervasive than most believed) 
observing people who are being unknowingly filmed mays also cause certain ethical issues, (ex: certain TV news
networks may show footage that backs up their theory but discard other footage that negates it); thus role of social
psychologist is to report full data and subsequently analyze it.
Archival Studies: involves examining existing records of past events and behaviors (ex: newspaper articles, medial
records, diaries, sorts stats, personal ads, crime stats)  major advantage is that as researchers are observing second hand
they can be sure that they are not themselves influencing behavior by their own presence (important in study of Connolly,
Price and Read in investigation of role of social science experts in cases that involve child sexual assault alleged to have
been committed long before case comes to trial)
Surveys: asking people question about attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (can be done in person, over phone, or by email)
 many social psychological questions can be answered only through surveys because they involve variables that are
impossible/unethical to observe directly or even manipulate (ex: people’s sexual behavior, or thoughts about future) 
anyone can conduct a survey but in terms of social psych, a certain protocol must be followed (as answers can be
controlled by wording and context  researchers trained to test wordings before hand)  researchers first select a
population to study from which they subsequently select a sample of individuals (which must be an accurate
representation of the population)  to be as accurate as possible, survey must be representative of population in
characteristics such as sex, age, race, income, education, cultural background (best way is to use random sampling =
method of selection in which everyone has equal chance of being selected for the sample)  researchers use randomizing
procedures (ex: tables of randomly distributed numbers generated by computers) in order to decide how to select
individuals for samples

b. Correlational research: looking for associations

Most research hypotheses concern relationship between variables (ex: is there a relationship between people’s gender and
their willingness to ask for help from others?)  correlational research can also be conducted using observational,
archival and survey methods BUT measures relationship between two variables  important to note, correlational
research does not manipulate variables, simply measure them

Correlation Coefficient: when researchers examine relationship between variables that vary in quantity, can also
measure strength and direction of relationship between the variables and calculate a stat called correlation coefficient 
correlation coefficient ranges form -1,0 to +1,0 (the absolute value of the number, without the positive or negative sign
indicates how strongly two variables are associated, the larger the absolute number, the stronger the relationship and the
better either of the two variables is a predictor of the other)  positive correlation = as one goes up so does the other,
negative correlation = as one goes up, the other goes down
Concurrent correlation = obtained at single point in time across a number of individuals
Prospective correlation = obtained at different times from same individual (particularly useful in determining whether
certain behaviors at a certain age are associated with other behavior at another age)

c. Advantages and Disadvantages of Correlational Research

Advantages:
 Can study associations of naturally occurring variables that can’t be manipulated or induced (gender, ethnicity,
age)
 Can examine phenomena difficult or unethical to create for research purposes (hate love, abuse)
 Offers researchers great deal of freedom where variables are measured  participants can be brought into lab or
can be questioned in everyday-life setting
Disadvantage:
Correlation is not causation  cannot demonstrate a cause and effect relationship  contains three possible causal
effects: A can cause B, B can cause A or another factor C can be the cause of both A and B (ex: A= hours of sleep, B=
cold, C= stress, one could see a negative correlation between A and B where hours of sleep decrease as cold increase,
cold increase when hours of sleep decrease, or stress makes cold increase and hours of sleep decrease)

Correlation can be extremely useful in developing new hypotheses to guide future research  by gathering large sets of
correlations and using complicated statistical techniques to crunch data, we can develop highly accurate predictions of
future events

d. Experiments: looking for cause and effect

After having established a correlation between two events, next step is to examine cause-and-effect relationships, which
requires conduction of an experiment (= form of research that can demonstrate causal relationship because the
experimenter has control over the events that occur and participants are randomly assigned to conditions)
All experiments share two essential characteristics:
1. Researcher has control over experimental procedure, in manipulating variables of interest while ensuring
uniformity elsewhere (i.e. all participants are treated in same way unless experiment itself requires otherwise) 
thus researcher attempts to make sure that differences obtained are produced by manipulation and not by other
events in experiment
2. Participants in study are randomly assigned to different conditions (i.e. manipulations)  thus random
assignment entails that participants are not assigned to a condition on the basis of their personal or behavioral
 characteristics and differences in outcome of experiment can be attributed to impact of manipulation and not pre-
existing differences between participants
Both characteristics serve to eliminate the influence on participant’s behavior of any factor other than the experimental
manipulation  we can therefore make more sound affirmations as to why a certain behavior occurred

Random Sampling versus Random Assignment

Random sampling = how individuals are selected to be in a study (not necessary for determining causality, thus because
is very expensive and difficult, is rarely used)
Random assignment = how participants in study are assigned to different conditions (is necessary fro determining cause
and effect relationships)

Laboratory and field experiments

Laboratory setting can resemble a game room or living room but in essence allows researcher to have complete control
over it
Field research is conducted in real world (i.e. outside lab)  advantage is that people are more likely to act naturally
than in a lab when they know they are being studied (BUT experimenter has less control and can’t ensure that participants
will be exposed to same things)
Claire Ashton James and pen color experiment: when handed a handful of colored pens where black color was in majority
and blue color in minority, westerners generally opted for the blue color and east Asians generally opted for the black 
used to study influence of mood and culture, where half of participants were put in pleasant mood by listening to classical
piece by Mozart and other half put in bad mood by listening to depressing piece by Rachmaninov  results showed that
positive moods make people act in manners not-conforming to their cultural standards

Independent and dependent variables

In studies, researchers manipulate independent variables and study their effect on dependent variables  ex of pen
experiment: independent variable was random assignment to be put in positive or negative mood and dependent variable
was subsequent choice of colors

Subject variables
Some experiments include variables neither dependent nor independent  ex of gender of ethnicity, which is not truly
manipulated by researcher thus can’t be independent, and at the same time can’t be influenced by independent variable,
and thus can’t be dependent variables  this category is referred to as subject variables (a variable characterizing pre-
existing differences among the participants in a study)
Experiments often include subject variables so that researchers can test whether the independent variables have the same
or different effects on different kinds of participants (in pen study, cultural background was a subject variable)

Statistical significance
How to know whether findings are significant when reviewing results of an experiment? Results are examined with
statistical analyses that allow researcher to determine how likely it is that the results could have occurred by chance  if
result could have occurred by chance in 5 or fewer times in 100, then they hold statistical significance BUT does not
mean results are certain  statistical significance gives a 95% odd that the effect obtained is the result of experimental
manipulation but possibility that results occurred by chance are still present  thus attempt at replication of results is
important, if results are the same than probability that they occurred by chance becomes one in 400  statistical
significance also relevant in matters of correlations (which may be statistically significant or not depending on strength of
correlation and number of participants or observations in data)

Internal validity: did the independent variable cause the effect?

When an experiment is properly conducted, it has internal validity (= the degree to which there can be reasonable
certainty that the independent variables in an experiment caused the effects obtained on the dependent variables) 
experiments also include control groups (which consists of participants who experience all of the experimental
procedures except experimental treatment) in order to further internally validate (ex: including a ‘neutral mood’ condition
in the moods and colored pens experiment)  outside lab, it becomes difficult to determine whether it is ethically just to
deprive certain people from acquiring the experimental treatment (ex: giving treatment against AIDS to a certain sample
and not another) but is necessary to determine which treatment works
Researchers must also consider there own role in assessing validity so as to not sabotage their own research in the
following manners:
 By making an explicit prediction about the effect of an independent variable before even conducting the study
 By unintentionally treating different patients how have been assigned to a specific experimental treatment
according to that treatment, thus influencing their behavior
 Thus the result could have been yielded by the experimenter’s actions rather than the independent variable
Best way to reduce experimenter expectancy effects (= effects produced when an experimenter’s expectations about the
results of an experiment affect his or her behavior toward a participant’s response) is to keep them uninformed about the
participants assignments to conditions  when unable to keep experimenter entirely out of loop, can minimize e.e.e. by
also minimizing interactions between experimenter and participant (ex: participants can be asked to read instructions on
computer screen instead of receiving them from experimenter)

External validity: do the results generalize?

External validity = extent to which the results obtained under one set of circumstances would also occur in a different set
of circumstances  once external validity achieved, a researcher’s findings can be assumed to extend to other people and
situations  it would be impossible to achieve a sample able to represent the entire world’s population, thus researchers
rely on convenience samples readily available to them (ex: university students)  researchers are now using internet-
based data collection which can allow more diverse sets of participants BUT also have less control over what participants
see or do as they participate  advocates of convenience samples also assert that there can be no contradiction between
universal principles and particular principles (ex: in aggression although the form of aggression can vary depending on
people or cultures, the causes of the aggression tend to be similar no matter what the background of the person)
External validity also affected by setting of research  one would tend to say that field research gives results based on
more natural behavior but in fact depends on perception of mundane realism vs. experimental realism
Mundane realism = degree to which the experimental situation resembles places and events in real world (ex: Theodore
Newcomb set up an entire college dorm to study interpersonal attraction)  the argument for mundane realism would be
that if the research field is more realistic than so would the findings be
Experimental realism = degree to which experimental procedures are involving to participants and lead them to behave
naturally and spontaneously  argument for experimental realism stipulates that if experimental situation is sufficiently
compelling to participants than their reaction will be natural and spontaneous regardless of their location  is preferred
method of lion share of social psychologists

Deception in Experiments
To create more convincing circumstances, deception is often employed  in order to do so, researcher can use
confederates (= accomplices of an experimenter who, in dealing with the real participants in an experiment, acts as if he
or she is also a participant)  (ex: Pamela Reagan and Delia Gutierrez, in study on sex of participant and perceived need
of an item influenced the helping behavior of an individual, thus asking confederates in supermarkets to ask ordinary
shoppers for a quarter toward various items such as milk (a high need item), cookie-dough (a low need item) and alcohol
(low need with negative connotation))
Deception not only enhances realism but also:
 Allows experimenter to manufacture situations in lab that would be difficult to observe in natural settings
 To study potentially armful behaviors (i.e. aggression) in a safe manner
 To assess people’s spontaneous reactions rather than socially acceptable presentations

e. Meta-Analysis: Combining Results Across Studies

Meta-analysis = set of statistical procedures used to review a body of evidence by combining the results of individual
studies to measure the overall reliability and strength of particular effects (ex: studies on effect of alcohol on aggression
sometimes contradict each other, combining all data relevant to the hypotheses can determine what effect alcohol
typically has, how strong the effect is, and under what conditions that effect is likely to occur)  meta analysis is being
used with increased frequency

f. Culture and research methods

Studying culture in social psych provides better tests of external validity of research that has been conducted in any one
setting  can then make conclusions as to whether certain behaviors are universal or culturally specific BUT when an
experiment does not fit well with another cultural setting should not simply be taken a failure to replicate but as an insight
into cultural differences
Difficulty in cultural investigations is in assumptions that individuals make and info they give to respond to surveys
(Susanne Haberstroth found that people from interdependent, collectivistic value promoting cultures are more likely to
take into account question context during a survey than individualistically oriented cultures)  other cultural difference is
how willing certain individuals from a certain culture are to answer personal questions (Nairan Ramirez-Esparza
demonstrated difference in data from self-report and observational measures as functions of culture  compared Mexican
and English-speaking American participants in how sociable the rated themselves on a questionnaire and how sociable
they actually are (assessed through voice activating recorder worn for two days) and results = although Mexicans rated
themselves as sociable as Americans they were in fact a lot more)  researchers must also be careful about language
(second study by Ramirez-Esparza which found that bilingual Mexican-American participants rated themselves as less
agreeable on a questionnaire if questions were Spanish than if they were in English but results of experiment
demonstrated the opposite)
 5) Ethics and Values in Social Psychology
Researchers have a moral and legal responsibility to abide by ethical principles  use of deception in particular has been
cause of concern
Stanley Milgram wanted to answer, “Would people obey orders to harm an innocent person?”  put volunteers into
situation where they were ordered to administer electric shock to another participant (in reality, no one was actually
receiving shock but volunteer was put through great stress and anxiety as he or she debated what to do)  debate was
drawn on whether significance of research justified exposing participants to possibly harmful psychological consequences

a. Research ethics boards

In Canada: Canadian institutes of health and research (CIHR), Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC) and Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) form the Interagency Advisory Panel on
Research Ethics (PRE or The Panel) charged with providing guidance regarding ethical issues associated with human
participant research  Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (2010) is a tri-council policy statement which
ensures that research done on humans must pass an institutional Research Ethics Board (REB) approva to ensure safety of
participants

b. Informed consent
Psychologists must also abide by own code of ethics called Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists set by the
Canadian Psychological Association which stipulates that researchers are obligated to guard rights and welfare of all
participants in their study including obtaining informed consent = an individual’s deliberate, voluntary decision to
participate in research, based on the researcher’s description of what will be required during such participation 
researchers shan’t proceed if consent is given under any measure of coercion and participants are free to withdraw at any
point  in practice, is in fact more difficult because information provided by researchers is at best vague as psychologists
don’t want knowledge to impact behavior of participants

c. Debriefing: telling all

Most research on participants reactions indicate a positive attitude about participation even when they were deceived
about a certain aspect of a study
Once deception has been used and data has been fully collected, however, researchers are obligated to fully inform their
patients on the nature of the research in which they have participated = debriefing (during which the researcher
emphasizes the scientific contribution made by the participant’s involvement)  during debriefing, deceptions are
revealed and the researcher explains what happened and why

d. Values and Science: Points of View

Ethical principles are based on moral values, which impose limits on conduct of research as well as influence individual
behavior  when potential benefits of research are high and human costs acceptable than moral imperative is to carry out
research but when human cost becomes too high moral dictates retention from study
Ethical issues are an appropriate focus for moral values in science, but do values affect science in other ways as well?
It becomes very difficult for researchers to hold moral objectivity  but one must be “championing causes that one
believes good for the culture … condemning movements or policies that seem inimical to human welfare” (Gergen)
On other hand “scientists are not necessarily more objective than other people; rather, they use methods that have been
developed to minimize self-deception” (Stanley Parkinson)