Is it good science to keep adding participants / manipulating data until you find an effect?

     The question here it would seem should focus more on the manipulation of data rather than that of adding participants to create change in results... (Or at least that's what I think)

     The reason I have said this is due to the belief that in research another psychologist could easily find a larger sample and replicate a study, which may create a change in results BUT appears to still in keep with 'good' science. 'Good' science for the sake of this blog being honest untampered with research, or research that hasn't been tampered with to create a desired effect.

     Manipulating methodology is all well and good when it comes to Psychology because that is what Psychology is about. Establishing causal relationships. If we don't test, we don't know. However to manipulate data is in my opinion, 'bad' science.

(Here is normally where a reference would go... There are no good ones)

     To continue, manipulation of data seems to give off a sense of laziness on the researchers part. Understandably there may be problems, regarding factors such as funding to carry on research, yet it doesn't warrant manipulating data to create an effect that wasn't visible in the first place.

     Does anyone agree/disagree/have a decent piece of research to back up or refute what I've said?

Comments appreciated.

Should psychology be written for the layman or should science be exclusively for scientists?

     Psychology as a whole can and is considered to be for the benefit of everyone. Psychology looks at human behaviour as well as cause and effect relationships. And so because it is for everyones benefit everyone should be able to understand what it is about.

     Obviously I am coming from the view that it should 'be written for the laymen' although I wouldn't use that turn of phrase. The idea that writing in scientific lexis for the sake of it appears to be unfair. Yes, to be scientific is all well and good (psychology being a science) but it shouldn't be used to separate scientists from none scientists.

     In A level Sociology there was the concept of the 'elaborate code' and the 'restricted code' in language. The elaborate code mainly associated with the upper class made use of a wider range of words and grammar whereas the restricted code, which was associated with the working class, was limited to the more basic. Furthermore it was suggested that the elaborate code was used to keep the upper class, upper.

     Now I personally don't agree with this for the fact that, anyone can pick up a dictionary. But using scientific language, that to many is difficult to understand for no reason other than because it is scientific is uncalled for.

     If it doesn't benefit the study, don't use it. Well thats what I think anyway!

Anyone else have an opinion on the subject? 

Is it ethically okay to use internet sources as data for qualitative studies?

     Whether or not it is acceptable or ethical to use internet sources as data for qualitative studies could easily be a topic with very good potential for debate... So here it goes.

     To be ethical in psychology there is an extensive set of guidelines that must be followed, but for arguments sake, lets funnel down and define 'ethical' as being morally correct or intrinsic, which in this case means 'good of itself', being used for information and informations sake only. And we too will define 'qualitative' as information that isn't collected in numerical form, such as opinions, open ended question/ answers or anything that can generate a varied response.

     First off, if there does happen to be someone out there, psychologist or not who does not use the internet... Where have you been!? The internet is the teacher of our generation! Where would we be without wikipedia seriously!? 

     For the fact that connectivity is so intrenched in everything we do, I would have to disagree with the idea that using the internet as a source of data for qualitative studies is unethical. 

Of course it's ethical! 

     An example being that if we wanted to find out why people disagreed with SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) we could easily type 'SOPA disagree' or something similar into any blogging site and there is your answer (for that particular site anyway) and then go on to find out why they disagree.

     Further more I don't see any ethical breach in using the internet as a means of data because as long as the source of your information is credited, their opinion remains their own and is also respected by your need as a psychologist to reference anything contributed by others.

     It would appear that this moral questioning is more an issue of 'why is the data gatherer being so lazy?' rather than 'why are they breaching ethical boundaries?'

     Due to the need to reference sources and the dependence on the internet as a means of communication, information and entertainment the ethics of using the internet as a source for any type of study should no longer be in question. After all it is the quickest way to get your voice heard, especially when you're trying to cover as much ground as possible.

     But what do you think? ethical or unethical.

Gender Bias In Diagnosis Of Depression

Following a discussion Steve Hosier had in a lecture a few days ago about depression and how women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression, it got me thinking about coping mechanisms each gender has and how that could affect amounts of diagnosis.

It is true that diagnosis in women may be more prevalent because they are more likely to seek help when the physical signs start showing, and that males avoid the intimacy of talking about their feelings and so do not look for help but suffer the same amount of depression, so it got me thinking about the differences men and women face in coping with the disorder as well as how the problem manifests...

(Yeahh writing this Ive just realised it is more informative than topical, but hey its pretty interesting)

According to upliftprogram.com Males are more likely to blame others, self medicate with drug use, lose sleep and are often angry. Women seemingly blame themselves, feel sad, anxious, withdraw, and self medicate through food...

http://www.upliftprogram.com/facts_depression_men.html

I find it interesting to think of how much stigma is still attached to this illness and how the stigma is reinforced and made more apparent because of your gender despite it being a fairly common disorder!

Any thoughts on the subject, psychology crew?

What I think about Quasi experiments...

A Quasi experiment is an experimental method that uses lab type controls but makes use of ready existing Independat Variables.

Quasi methods are incredibly useful in the fact that they can aviod ethical concerns, say if the variable that you wanted to measure could otherwise harm the participants.

Examples include smoking, drinking or any habit forming activity as well as other things such as someoe who has had a stroke or an operation that could otherwise alter there normal being.

An example of the Quasi method could be the functions of the left and right hemisphere of the brains when the corpus callossum (not sure if thats the proper spelling) is severed. This connective tissue is only cut when the person who has had the operation has suffered severe seizures to prevent it passig from one hemisphere to the other...

Sperry (yeah A level study here) tried to understand 'lateralisation of function' in the brain by using these split brain patients. He used methods that included showing to images, one either side of the screen on a moniter, that appeared for one tenth of a second to see what parts of the brain couldcomprehend language etc. as well as a tactile task were each side of the brain was, in essence told to find a certain object. Funnily with the tactile task the hands seemed to operate completely individual from one another.. If one hand came across the object the other hand searched for it ignored the fact entirely!

Yeah I could go on about that because it is a really interesting study but it is just my evidence!

The point is Quasi experiments are useful because like ive said you couldnt walk up to someone on the street and cut their brain in half for your research purposes.

What do you think is the most useful study method?

Maybe Ethics :D

     Hey Mutha Blogga's, now I genuinly dont know what to write about but I'm going to give it a shot.

     Ethics in research are probably one of the largest factors to consider when thinking about designing a study. Its no good saying 'I'm going to study the effects of getting hit by a car on emotion' and asking for volunteers. Just no one will apply, unless theyre a little crazy anyway... The ammount of ethical considerations are now so important that they do govern what can and cant be done! I'll reduce the topic a little now though and discuss the 'debrief'.

     To me, debriefing your participats is one of the biggies in the ethical consideration world. If you coduct an experiment and dont give them the full picture at the end there could be a lot of wonder, confusion or even stress as to what they just took part in, especially if the experiment requires you to go the extra mile in terms of performing certain tasks. (Milgrams study into authorities effect on obedience) http://www.wadsworth.com/psychology_d/templates/student_resources/0155060678_rathus/ps/ps01.html

     If the participants in Milgrams study were left to believe they had seriously injured or possibly killed another person who knows what damage could have been caused to their mental state. What do you think is the most important ethical consideration in psychology?
(Yeahh thats right I just a question to generate debate)

peace out

Reliabilty of Case Studies

Okay, hey guys, Im going to attempt to talk about the reliability of case studies so bare with me if I completely miss the idea. The thing about case studies is they generally focus on an individual or specific group of people for a long period of time, (or at least A level has shown me that) so we could easily question the reliability of most case studies as chances are because its an individual you study the findings you gain are also tailored to that individual. For example, going back to A level, Thigpen and Cleckley conducted therapy on a woman who looked for help for her blinding headaches and blackouts. After several suspect actions such as a letter that appeared to be written by two different people and an episode where 'Eve White' held her head in pain and returned upright with a completely different persona therapists concluded she had multiple personality disorder. Whilst Thigpen and Cleckley collected over 100 hours of information on the personalities some say people got too close to their patient. Other questionable data taken from this case study was the fact that they assigned a lead personality to take over completely but thats a different topic... We can question the reliability of this case study because as mentioned before only Eve White suffered from this particular MPD. We cant assume that everyone will go through exactly the same as what she went through. It could even be and should be said that some of the qualitative data collected by T and C was easily subjective. And that is the problem with case studies of this nature. We cant generalise findings and so clouding the reliability of the data gathered. That should make sense and yeah look forward to any comments :D