Was this result statistically significant, and if so at what probability? The intervention group reported a reduction in mobility difficulty at week 12 was statistically significant at p < 0.001 probability. 4. If the researchers had set the level of significance or α = 0.01, would the results of p = 0.001 still be statistically significant? Provide a rationale for your answer.
The reward/need satisfaction theory of relationship proposed by Byrne & Clore (1970) asserts that if a relationship is seen to offer the prospect of reward (for either party), it is more likely to form – if there is little or no perceived reward, the relationship does not form. Their model is based on the behaviourist principles of operant and classical conditioning. According to the former, behaviour that results in a beneficial outcome makes repetition of this behaviour more likely, whereas if the outcome is undesirable, the behaviour is less likely to be repeated or continued. A relationship that brings perceived advantages is a case of positive reinforcement but the relationship can also be characterised by negative reinforcement if the
Compare the mean baseline and posttest depression scores of the control group. Do these scores strengthen or weaken the validity of the research results? Provide a rationale for your answer. Ans: The main baseline and posttest depression scores are in control groups are same (10.40 and 10.40) the score is weakened because the fastest score should be higher than the baseline. 5.
He found that people were much more likely to relapse when they believed withdrawals were going to be negative. Those who were told to expect no negative withdrawals were less likely to relapse as they had a positive expectation. This provides evidence for the key role expectancy has in relapse. However Tate’s experiment can be criticised. The independent group design could have meant, by chance, the group who were told to expect no negative withdraws, were naturally more determined people, thus increasing their chance of giving up anyway.
P2 Describe two studies in psychology. Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment (1951) Asch wanted to find out if a group of people would conform to the wrong answer following people who had already but there hand up even though the correct answer was very obvious. It was used with a line graph and you had to say which line was the tallest out them all. Asch conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform and follow what they do. Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity; he got 50 males to come and do the experiment and used 7 people who were confederates, the confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be when shown with the line task.
Toheeb Adeyemi Unit 5 M3 Asch’s study is a very good example of how people conform to the actions of others, even though they know that what others say or do is not necessarily right. The aim of this study was to discover how much the majority influences the decisions of individuals during a clear task. Would the majority vote influence their own answer to the apparently single option, or would they stick firmly to their view that they knew to be correct? How many individuals in the group would conform? He found out during the 12 most important trials, 36.8% of the answers given by the ‘real’ participants were incorrect, effectively conforming to the wrong answers given by the common associates.
This shows why some sociologists may not use questionnaires as with a low response rate they can lack generalizability. It is argued that a higher response rate can be obtained if follow up questionnaires are sent out, if they are collected by hand or even if they sent out by email. However these methods tend to be either more time consuming or more costly. As well as this a great danger with low response rates is the fact that those that are returned are usually from people that aren’t fully employed or an isolated group of society and therefore means it lacks representativeness. Another reason why sociologists may not want to use questionnaires is their inflexibility.
The purpose of the study by Crocker and Schwartz (1985) was to contradict prior research that indicated that low self-esteem people are more likely to be prejudiced than those with high self-esteem. The authors hypothesized that individuals with high self-esteem would demonstrate greater ethnocentrism whereas subjects with low self-esteem would demonstrate higher negativity about out-groups and would be less likely to identify large distinctions between the groups. Therefore, those with low-self esteem would rate all lower regardless of group designation. The authors also sought to distinguish between an individual’s comparisons of themselves with other people in general, versus their comparison with the out-group. Forty-two male and female introductory psychology students were studied in groups of six.
They are more likely to over predict, in some cases people may be labeled as dangerous when they are not. These psychologists and psychiatrists tend to err on the side of caution when predicting
If they were to regard themselves and offenders as members of the same group, a competition over status and power would be less likely, as they would focus more on what they have in common than on what separates them. Indeed, as members of the same group they could even have power through powerful other in-group members. Conversely, a transgression is more likely to be interpreted as a threat to one’s status or power when one conceptualizes oneself as different from the offender. Assuming that retributive justice is primarily motivated by status/power concerns, this justice notion should therefore be more salient when the involved parties are perceived to have different