http://repugh18.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/blogs/#comment-49
https://abbydoesmath.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/can-correlation-show-causality/#comment-38
Apr18
Mar25
Is it ethically OK to use internet sources as data for qualitative studies?
Well it’s the last of the blogs. Over the past few weeks I have read quite a few blogs on this topic of whether it is ok to use the internet as a source of data for qualitative research. These blogs have presented a great insight to the topic and their opinions on what they think and I just wanted to do some more searching and have a chance to express my opinion on the topic.
The internet has become so widely used in many aspects of life: socially and professionally. Now even research has resorted to the use of the internet such as questionnaires and surveys. The internet allows people to express their opinions (just as we are doing with our blogs) and therefore can be a rich source of data. There are several different ‘communities’ online which allow people to discuss with others without necessarily being recognised. An internet community refers to mailing lists, chat rooms, newsgroup, and also online discussion boards. I think before we consider if it is ethically ok to use the internet for qualitative research we should identify what qualitative research is. Qualitative research aims to listen to voice of participants: their worries and thoughts. Qualitative research produces rich data which is a great benefit of this type of research.
Internet research is becoming more widely used today. There are three main types of internet research methods. The first method is passive analysis. In this method the researcher does not involve themselves and just studies the patterns of the websites. The second method is active analysis. In this method researchers participate in communications to determine the accuracy of responses. However the researcher does not say they are a researcher. In the third method the researcher identifies themselves as a researcher. This method can be used in the form of a semi structured interview.
But the main question is: is it ethically ok to use internet sources as data for qualitative studies? Well this is a difficult question and there are a great of deal of different opinions on this topic. Some of the main ethical aspects to consider with internet research are informed consent, privacy and confidentiality. These are key ethical issues in any type of research but with internet research it can get a bit complicated. Firstly it is difficult to distinguish between private internet communities and public ones. This is important as if you wanted to observe in a public context you would not need to obtain consent from participants, whereas in a private context consent is required. Like I said it is difficult to distinguish between private and public communities. An internet community is considered private if a subscription or a form of registration is required to enter the community (e.g. chat room or mailing list) and subscribers are not going to expect for their conversations/discussions to be observed. Also the number of users of the community helps to determine if the community is private. However, this can be nearly impossible to determine. So as you can see the question which you first thought was simple isn’t at all.
So when we have decided whether consent is needed or not then how do we get it? Is it as simple as just asking the participants for their permission to use their data or participate? Well let’s think to the example of mailing lists. There are two possibilities how to get consent for mailing lists. You could either send an email to every participant and describe the experiment/observation to them and give them the opportunity to withdraw themselves. However this can be intrusive and is only possible if new members can be identified as a new member. Therefore there needs to be a way of distinguishing between old and new members. Also this method could possibly influence future communication as you have explained what you will be observing so they may react in what they think is a desirable way. Another way to obtain consent for mailing lists is to ask after observing whether the participants wants their posts/data to be used and they can withdraw in this way. This method is less intrusive and the researchers can ensure messages are interpreted correctly as they haven’t identified themselves as such. However, this method can be time consuming but then again so is most qualitative research.
As I mentioned previously, privacy and confidentiality is a must in all research (quantitative and qualitative). This is incredibly important, especially in internet research as people can be traced online. Researchers need to specify (when asking for consent) if they will be using exact quotes from participants as quotes can be searched online and people may possibly be able to identify the participant. This may be one of the hardest rules to keep as there are so many ways to search for things and people could be identified. This principle combines with protection of participants as if a researcher does not keep them completely confidential then they may be identified which may potentially bring harm to the participant.
So as you can tell there are a lot of ethics to consider with any type of research but it can get complicated with internet research. I personally think that it is fine to conduct research on the internet as long as these ethics and precautions are taken seriously. I think people can benefit from this research as by using the internet you can look at a lot more in less time. Also it is called the world wide web for a reason: because the whole world can access it. Therefore more cultures can be observed by using the internet. Also internet research is cheaper because the participants are already using the internet; they are not having to be brought to a lab to be tested which can cost large amounts.
One of the arguments I have heard is that this is research going too far but are these just modified techniques based on existing ones? For example customer surveys used to be done in person but now they are either done online or by email which saves the money of someone stood at a shop entrance for hours and hours waiting for people to participate. Whereas if they are done by email the company can send a mass email to all their registered customers and wait for a reply. This is cheaper and also takes less time. This isn’t a new method it is just a revised method of an older one. A ‘new’, alternative to the survey method is ‘structured observation’. Structured observation refers to observations done by a person filling out a questionnaire which has been approved and validated by experts. It is said that this method may be an appropriate substitute for a survey. This does not mean that old methods will become forgotten and not used just that there are alternatives which work better in certain situations.
After looking up research on this topic I have decided that research on the internet can be beneficial and save time. It can also bring the opportunity for approaching people in other countries and including them in research in this country. I think the internet can be an amazing aid in the world today however there is the danger of becoming reliant on the internet and forgetting where we came from and forgetting the traditional methods of research. After all these methods have brought us some incredible research and some research cannot be conducted online. For qualitative research I feel the internet can be beneficial as participants don’t even have to show their face to the experimenter saving them embarrassment or fear of expressing their true feelings which they may not express in a face to face context. I think this is a topic that everyone has to think about and really consider the advantages and disadvantages before making a clear cut decision.
If anyone is interested on reading up any more information here are some of the websites I used and some that I found interesting:
http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7321/1103.full
www.codata.org/06conf/presentations/…/NivAhituv&YaelSteimberg… (this is the web address that was associated with a presentation I looked at but I don’t think it takes you directly to the presentation so the next link is the google link and I found this presentation from that page…)
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=internet+research+methods&oq=internet+research+&aq=1&aqi=g4&aqi=&qs_l=serp.3.1.0l4.0I0I1I328I0I0I0I0I0I0I0I0II0I0.frgld.&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=6b9d0de2ab56a6ef&biw=1080&bih=467 (google link to powerpoint I used for information on this blog. Titled “[PPT] The impact of the internet of research methods:…”)
Mar13
homework for my TA (14/03/12)
http://thought3.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/listening-to-mozart-reduces-allergic-skin-wheal-responses/#comments (sorry kat I had gone off the page before saving the web link so I had to go back and find it again but I couldn’t put the link to the actual comment but it is the 3rd comment for this article.)
Mar11
POPP’s: Good or Bad?
Speaking in public is becoming a more sought after skill in many areas of life; such as in the workplace and in education too. This skill is increasingly being taught in one way or another. You can now access public speaking courses online and find the closest one to your area. In our university (Bangor University) we have POPPs classes where we put these skills into practice. We do a mixture of prepared and impromptu speeches which vary the skills we learn such as preparation and thinking on our feet. POPP’s is a big part of our grade in stats and can really benefit our overall grade if we put the effort into this part of the module. However, I do know that there is a big debate whether we should do POPP’s or not. I am going to try and give both sides of the argument and let you know what I think as I go along.
Like I briefly mentioned, POPP’s is worth a big part of our stats grade. It is worth 15% of a 30 credit module which means it can have a big impact on our overall grade for psychology. This does suggest how important the skills learnt in this class are. These skills include increased confidence, interpersonal skills and communication. By standing in front of an audience and speaking/performing repeatedly then your self-confidence will increase which can be beneficial in all aspects of life such as work or in personal relationships. Public speaking can help in work and your career right from the start; the interview. The interview is much like giving a speech about yourself and why you are suited for the job and what they would gain by hiring you. For this you need self-confidence which giving speeches regularly can improve. Therefore these aspects are all linked. There isn’t really a chance you can avoid speaking in public all your life. You may be asked to give a speech at a wedding or special occasion. Even when a man proposes there is usually an audience (well traditionally) which they would have to speak in front of. Key communication skills can also be learnt or enhanced through the practice of giving speeches. This is because you get chance to prepare for most speeches, therefore, you have the opportunity and time to think about what you want to say and phrase things better. Also when giving a speech there is usually an opportunity given to the audience to ask questions; this can help you improve how to think on your feet and deal with the unexpected. I personally think POPP’s is a beneficial part of our course and numerous skills can be learnt or perfected. In addition to this, our speeches are not graded. We are not cruelly judged on what we say, we are given advice. I think this really helps because it doesn’t matter if we do a rubbish speech because it isn’t severely marked (we simply get a mark if we do it and give it a go) but we do get pointers on how to improve which helps increase confidence and get the practice which is truly needed.
However, I do understand that POPP’s and public speaking is some peoples worst nightmares. Some people experience bad anxiety when thinking about giving a speech. These symptoms (for example sweating) can vary in degree. Emory University have indicated that 88% of people have social phobia. Social phobia is a fear of speaking in public. This shows that this fear is not uncommon and many people do get nervous when speaking in public so you are not alone in these feelings. Some people it is as simple as being scared of speaking in front of people or being judged or the fact that eye contact is required. Some people go completely blank no matter how much they prepare and practice their speech. I must admit that when I first gave a speech or gave a reading I was incredibly nervous and it was horrible and I just wanted it to end as quickly as possible. But now I sing regularly in front of an audience and I have given speeches on various occasions and I don’t really have a problem with giving a speech in POPP’s because the atmosphere is laid back and I know that it is all practice and will help me improve my skills. Another argument I have heard is that preparing a speech takes a long time and yes I agree. Writing a good speech can take a lot of time and practice but like I keep on saying the benefits definitely outweigh the costs. Many people fear that they do not have complete control over their speech due to unexpected questions which means they have to think on the spot as you cannot prepare for every possible question. Another argument (which I do not agree with) is that POPP’s is a waste of time. I understand that the people who are already confident in speaking in front of people don’t see the point but I think it is important that they realise that a lot of other people need the practice and experience to overcome their fears.
There has been a lot of research in this area in how to ‘cure’ people of their social phobia. The Lefkoe method is a common method involving 4 steps. These are:
- Identify the causes of the fear of speaking in public
- The client is then shown how to unlearn these fears they have already learnt
- Then discover how these fears have come about
- The final stage involves breaking the connection between these fears and events.
All in all these steps take approximately 3 – 4 hours and then you will be cured from your social phobia. These sessions last approx. 60 minutes and are done over the phone by a certified facilitator. The certified facilitators go through rigorous training ensuring consistent results are reached in consistent time. A change is said to be noticed after each session. However these sessions are quite expensive. $200 is to be paid before each session/appointment so you can spread the cost apart. There are many people who have reported great results with this method so it is questionable whether this money is worth it to overcome a long lasting fear. Go to this link to read more and see patients’ comments: http://www.speakingwithoutfear.com/ .
Anderson et al. conducted an experiment involving virtual exposure to reduce anxiety of speaking in public. They conducted 8 therapy sessions; 4 of these sessions were anxiety management and 4 were exposure therapy. In the exposure therapy sessions participants gave speeches to a virtual audience. All participants completed questionnaires about their anxiety before and after treatment. They also completed one 3 months later. Participants were asked to give a speech to a real audience before and after treatment and then completed their anxiety questionnaires. Result showed a reduction in anxiety levels on all self-report measures (pre and post treatment). This reduction was maintained on the follow up measures. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/da.20090/abstract).
There are also various other courses and clubs which can help reduce anxiety such as the toastmasters club. You can search for courses online as well. One website is: http://www.skillstudio.co.uk/public-speaking/?gclid=CNHS9efB364CFREPfAodLHz_ZQ. It is encouraging that there is so much help out there for people to improve this skill, as I have emphasised throughout this blog, it is a great skill to have and be incredibly useful in many aspects of life. I personally think POPP’s is a good thing and have found that many people benefit from these types of courses. To finish I would like to leave you with a quote from the Ohio State University extension: “Good public speakers are made, not born.”
Here are the other references I have used in this blog if you want to have a look:
http://www.ehow.com/list_7707802_advantages-public-speaking.html
http://www.speakingaboutpresenting.com/nervousness/fear-of-public-speaking-research/
http://www.ehow.com/list_7677144_disadvantages-public-speaking.html
Feb19
Homework for my TA (22nd Feb 2012)
Feb18
ANOVA Blog…
Time for the second blog! Can’t believe how fast this semester is going…quite scary actually. I thought I would base my blog on what we have been doing over the last 2 weeks which is one-way ANOVA’s (if you don’t know). Basically an ANOVA is an analysis of variance which is used when there are 3 or more groups. If you only have two groups then you would use a t-test to compare the means. A one-way ANOVA is used to basically see if there is a difference between groups, however…and it is a big however, it does not tell you where the differences lie so tests are done afterwards (but I will go into detail after about the different tests which can be used and when they are used).
So…one-way ANOVA’s here we come. Before I start talking about all the nitty gritty stuff with ANOVA’s and attempt to explain it I think it is best to start with the assumptions of ANOVA. There are 3 assumptions of ANOVA. The first one is that the samples should be normally distributed. The second is homogeneity of variance meaning that variances should be equal (which is what the null hypothesis states), therefore you do not want a significant result on your Levene’s test which tests for homogeneity of variance. The final assumption is that groups are independent of one another. This can be solved really in your methodology and how you collect your data, therefore, to ensure that groups are independent of one another it would probably be best to randomly select your groups to reduce biases.
Now for the nitty gritty stuff! Like I said before one-way ANOVA’s are used to see if there is a difference between the groups (null hypothesis saying there isn’t a difference, alternative hypothesis saying there is a difference). These groups will belong to a single factor and have separate groups within the factor. For example if you think about the data we have been using in class the single factor is the ‘driving error’, this has separate groups which (in our data) are the control group (who consumed no alcohol), a group who consumed a low amount of alcohol and a group who consumed a high amount of alcohol. So we would run a one-way ANOVA on the data produced and see if there is a significant difference between the groups or not. ANOVA produce’s an F value. An F value is calculated by dividing the mean square of the treatment (between) by the mean square of the error (the difference within groups). The mean square is the sum of squares divided by its degrees of freedom. The higher the F value then the more significant it will be. Therefore a significant F would show that there is a difference between the groups you have tested, HOWEVER, (like I mentioned earlier) a significant F does not tell us where the difference lies.
As I mentioned before, there are many follow up tests to discover where the difference lies. These tests are separated into two main categories: planned contrasts (a priori) and post hoc tests (a posteriori). There are some important differences between these tests. Planned contrasts or a priori tests are contrast tests which you decide you will do before you look at the data. Therefore they are based on your hypothesis and your prediction. This means that these contrasts are very specific. For example, if you think about the data we have been using over the last couple of weeks it would make sense to compare the control group who drank no alcohol with people who drank some alcohol whether it was low or high as you would expect more driving errors with people who had consumed alcohol than those who hadn’t had any alcohol. This means you would be comparing the control group against the low alcohol group and the high alcohol group. The low alcohol and high alcohol group would be considered as one group. The way you do this is to code the groups or ‘weight’ the groups with coefficients. Coefficients always have to equal zero. Therefore, doing this comparison you would code the control group as -2 and code both the low alcohol group and the high alcohol group as 1. This would group the low and high alcohol groups together and consider them as one group as they have the same weighting. To check you have weighted them correctly and they add up to zero is simple so in this case it would be -2 + 1 + 1 which of course equals 0. You can also not include a group in your comparisons by coding them with a 0. For example if you wanted to compare the driving errors between participants who drank a low amount of alcohol to those who had a high amount of alcohol you wouldn’t need to include the control group (who didn’t have any alcohol). You would code the control group as 0 so it has no weight in the comparison. You would code the low alcohol group as -1 and the high alcohol group as 1. It doesn’t particularly matter what the numbers are as long as they equal 0 in the end. The low alcohol group and the high alcohol group have different numbers to each other this time as they are being compared to each other, not being classed as one group. So just a quick overview of that; any groups that you want to be considered as one group would have the same weighting, whereas, groups that are being compared need different weightings which equal 0.
Now that I have told you about the planned contrast/a priori tests I will tell you about post hoc/a posteriori tests. Post hoc tests are used to do multiple tests on your data. Post hoc tests are used when you haven’t planned any contrasts to test; therefore they are generally used when you have no idea what to expect (for example if there was no previous research in the area). Post hoc tests are driven by the data, whereas (like I said before), planned contrasts are driven by your hypothesis. As I briefly mentioned, post hoc testing involves carrying out multiple tests to compare your data. This increases the risk of making a type 1 error which means you could say something is significant when it isn’t. This is because by doing multiple tests there is a chance that one of them will show up as significant even if it truly isn’t. If you reduce the risk of type 1 error then you increase the risk of getting a type 2 error so a balance needs to be met. It is one of the reasons why post hoc tests are avoided and more people conduct planned contrasts based on their hypothesis. There are a variety of post hoc tests and they vary in how strict and conservative they are. One of the first being Fisher’s LSD (least significant difference). This test is quite liberal and would show significance easier than some of the other tests that I will talk about. This test keeps the alpha level constant if there are three or less groups being compared, therefore, this test should be avoided when you have a large amount of groups. Another of the more popular post hoc tests is the Scheffe’s test. This is a conservative test, therefore reducing the risk of getting a type 1 error. It is said that this is a good test to use if complex comparisons are being made. Bonferroni is another test which is very strict. The bonferroni test uses t-tests to compare all the possible levels in the variable so if you have 3 groups (1, 2, 3) you would have 3 possible comparisons (1 and 2, 2 and 3, 1 and 3). Hopefully you can see that when there are a large amount of groups it can get complicated and a lot more comparisons will have to be made. With the stricter tests it is harder to find significance which means there is a risk of getting a type 2 error (saying that something isn’t significant when it actually is). Due to this stricter tests have less power; especially compared to planned contrasts. There are more post hoc tests which you can choose to run as well as what I have talked about.
Hopefully now you know about one-way ANOVA’s and that there are different ways of analysing your data to find where the difference lies between the groups once you have established if there is a difference or not. I personally think it makes a lot more sense to use planned contrasts as they are based on your predictions and hypothesis and you can test the specific things you want to test. Also they have more statistical power than that of post hoc tests and therefore you can feel more sure of your results. I think post hoc tests should only ever be used if you genuinely do not have a clue in which direction your data will go and should be used as a last resort.
I found loads and loads of websites that were helpful when I was reading up on this topic. Here are a few of the ones I thought were really helpful and used to help me write this blog.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/anova-test.html
http://www.experiment-resources.com/one-way-anova.html
http://www.statisticshell.com/docs/anovabyhand.pdf
http://pages.uoregon.edu/stevensj/posthoc.pdf
http://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m170/ch13-1wy.html
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~markm/temple%20statistics/06_contrasts2.pdf
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~markm/temple%20statistics/06_contrasts2.pdf
That looks like a lot but they are all in really easy language to understand. And just a quick comment for whoever reads this far down the blog after the web links but the statistics hell website is really good. Its Dr. Andy Fields website and I know a lot of you really like his book, well this website is really useful as well. It looks odd when you go on it but it is all broke down and has videos to help explain the more difficult topics.
Feb7
homework for my TA (for the 10th feb 2012)
Feb2
Ethics and Milgram
Well welcome back to the blogs. To kick start semester 2 blogs I am going to discuss a topic which we all know about and are possibly sick of hearing about. However, I thought it would be a good time to think about ethics and what is ethical, especially as we will all be thinking about ethics soon enough for our projects.
So as I said we are constantly reminded about ethics and ethical principles in research and how important it is to meet the criteria. However, ethics are a code of conduct, meaning they are only guidelines not law. So it can make it difficult to decide whether someone is truly being unethical.
There are many aspects to consider when deciding what is ethical. There are 5 key principles to consider when deciding if something is ethical or not. These are:
- Beneficence and non-malificence
- Fidelity and responsibility
- Integrity
- Justice
- Respect for others’ rights and dignity
Personally when I first heard all of these words I was a bit taken aback and didn’t really know what they all meant. So just to make if clear, for everyone reading this blog, I will just briefly explain each one. Beneficence and non-malificence basically means that the research should be beneficial socially and not harmful. The costs (eg. Duration) to an individual taking part in the experiment should outweigh the social benefits. Fidelity and responsibility refers to the trust and responsibility on local and global levels. On a local level, the participant should be able to trust the researcher; especially when it comes to their well-being and their data being kept confidential. On a global level researchers should be able to trust other researchers in the field. Integrity is important as this is how honest and accurate the research is; basically if it is reliable or not. Integrity states that it is wrong (unethical) to deceive participants. However this is sometimes necessary; for example in observational studies. If you told a person before you observed them that they were going to be observed then they wouldn’t act normally so you would not get true data. Therefore, sometimes you have to ‘deceive’ participants in a way so you can observe them and then afterwards ask them for consent to use their data. Justice is one of the more simple principles to grasp. This principle states that it is considered ethical for everyone to be able to benefit from the research. It is important to not introduce biases (e.g. gender) that will affect how people will benefit from the research. The last of the 5 principles are respect for others’ rights and dignity. This is quite self-explanatory as it means that you should have enough respect for the rights of the participants. Examples of their rights are: that they are fully informed so they can make their own informed decisions, they are aware of any risks and the benefits, their data is kept confidential and their right to withdraw. A participants right to withdraw is really important as if can protect the participants from harm. If a participant is feeling uncomfortable in the situation or is just feeling ill that day then they can withdraw without penalty. This can protect them from harm as it is their decision to continue or not and they will not be penalised if they do end their participation early. This principle does also state that you cannot observe someone without telling them. This is pretty much what I was saying about deceiving participants in observational studies and this is why they can sometimes seem unethical. As I said there are ways to resolve this problem and people obviously do because there are plenty of research out there that is conducted in this way.
There are a few iconic experiments that have been criticised and deemed unethical. Probably the most famous one would be Milgram’s obedience study. Milgram wanted to conduct an experiment to see how obedient an ordinary person would be to an authority figure. This was due to the mass public opinions after the second world war on the Nazi Germans behaviour. Many people said that it was because they were German and something genetically made them behave in this awful manner. Milgram disagreed, which is why he did this study as he believed any human could act in this way depending on the situation. i know the vast majority of you will know this experiment but here is a brief (and I mean brief) overview. There was an experimenter who acted as the authority figure and a ‘victim’/learner; both of these hired by Milgram. The real participant had to take on the role of a teacher. When the learner got answers wrong, the teacher (i.e. the real participant) would have to administer an electric shock to the learner as punishment. These shocks increased in severity with each wrong answer reaching 450 volts (the maximum score), this was labelled ‘XXX’. These shocks were not real even though the victim/learner acted as if they were with increasing shouting and banging which finally led to the victim falling silent. Participants did not know these shocks were not real and truly thought they were giving dangerously high shocks to an innocent person. An astounding 26 out of 40 people continued until the end of the experiment, giving the maximum electric shock of 450 volts.
Now I will go through the ethical principles one by one and discuss Milgram’s obedience experiment. Beneficence and non-malificence – this experiment does benefit society as it gains an understanding of how the Nazi Germans could have acted the way they did and that every single one of us is capable of doing the same. This experiment did not cause serious harm. There was no harm towards the victim. However, some participants experienced symptoms similar to a nervous breakdown; these symptoms were not long lasting. Fidelity and responsibility – in this section we need to decide whether participants could trust the experimenter. Well in the context of the experiment maybe not due to the deception but Milgram kept people anonymous and did not use real names of the participants. Integrity –this is similar to fidelity and responsibility as participants were deceived as it was an observational study and Milgram wanted to observe how people would naturally react in this authoritative situation. However, does this make it unethical? Justice – the main issue with this experiment was it only tested men, which is a gender bias. Under this principle it would make it unethical as it would not benefit women. After these criticisms Milgram conducted a similar experiment with women and found similar results. Does that still mean this experiment is unethical? And the last principle respect for others’ rights and dignity is where there is a massive downfall with this experiment. Milgram deceives his participants meaning they cannot make informed decisions as they are informed on the wrong thing. Also the risks and dangers to the victim were not real and participants were deceived on this count too. It was also questionable whether participants could withdraw from the experiment or not as when they requested to do so they were prompted, however, after requesting 3 times the experiment ended. Another major thing is participants were filmed during the experiment without consent which is unethical.
After considering all these points I would say Milgram’s methods were unethical. This experiment has been replicated so is it truly unethical or did it benefit society? This piece of research opened hundreds of people’s eyes to how people can act when put under pressure from authority. The results were shocking so was it worth being unethical to find these fundamental results? Personally I think some aspects of Milgram’s experiment were unethical (as I have mentioned) but to find out that people can act in such an inhumane way in certain situations because they are told to is hard to believe.
There are other beneficial pieces of research that are unethical but have revealed things about humanity that we wouldn’t know if these experiments hadn’t been done. An example is Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment. There is a brief description and quote from Zimbardo in Aronson’s ‘The Social Animal’.
I would recommend looking at http://www.simplypsychology.org/ethics.html if you are bit confused about ethics. I stumbled across it on google and it explained things really clearly.
http://www.garysturt.free-online.co.uk/milgram.htm this website explains in depth Milgram’s experiment (the methods, the results and a discussion) and has a good discussion about whether it was unethical or not. I would recommend having a look if your interested.
Dec9
Homework for my TA – week 10
Dec9
Correlation and Regression
Woohoo the last of the blogs! … for now anyway. In stats over the last couple of weeks we have been doing correlation and regression, so I thought I would write a blog on it (well try anyway).
Correlation is described as the relationship between two variables. The correlation coefficient (which is the number calculated to describe the correlation) can range from -1 to +1. The closer the value is to 1 (negative or positive) the stronger the correlation/relationship is. If the value is close to -1 this means there is a negative correlation. This means that as one variable increases the other will decrease for example the more diet pills someone takes the less they will weigh. If the score was close to +1 then this would be a positive correlation which means both variables will increase together, for example, the more hours someone goes to work then the more money they will earn by the end of the month. If the value is close to 0 then there is no relationship between these two variables. Scatterplots are very often used to show a correlation with one variable on each axis (i.e. Y axis and X axis). I think scatterplots make it a lot easier to see if there is a relationship between two variables. However, there are limitations to correlational research. The main one is that a correlation cannot say what has caused what. There are different types of correlational studies, for example the survey method. This is probably the most popular method in correlational research but it in itself has its limitations with questionnaires and various biases.
Regression (for me) is more complicated to understand, especially the SPSS stuff. I think I will benefit from writing this blog as it will make me sit and read information about regression and understand it so I can tell you all about it. So here I go…Regression is used after a correlation has been identified to predict things about a variable. For example, on a time scale if you have only collected data until 3 months on the effectiveness of a drug and wanted to know the effects of this drug at 6 months then regression would help to predict this. The regression equation (y=a + bX) is used to calculate the point on the Y axis where the regression line (line of best fit) intercepts. Regression is a good way to determine if a variable causes an effect. For example regression would be able to identify that eating fatty foods is the cause to weight gain.
I believe correlation and regression can be great tools in analysing data and recognising relationships between variables. I personally find regression harder to understand and get my head around but I think it can be a really beneficial tool in research.
I looked at a couple of websites to help me understand this topic. Take a look if you want to know more:
www.stat.pac.cpm/statistics-calculator/correlation-regression.htm
www.experiment-resources.com/correlation-and-regression.html
HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD CHRISTMAS =]
kennedy92 