Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

37 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
historically unethical research experiements
Stanford Prison Study simulate a prison in basement for two weeks, with 6x9 cells (w\ a cot), a prison yard/corridor, and a 2x2x7 solitary confinement cell. Install cameras and microphones.
Subjects: assign 21 normal, healthy males as guards and prisoners. Pay each $15 per day for participation. Provide basic instructions about roles. Guards are to believe that main role of study is to observe prisoners.
Procedure for prisoners: arrest subjects at home, take to police station, search and book, blindfold, take to prison, delouse, stand naked, get uniform, get sent to cell and ordered to remain quiet.
Fraud and plagerism
Scientific research must be honest, accurate, and referenced.
Research Fraud: fabricate/misrepresent research
Due to publish or perish
Pressure to obtain/retain grants
Plagiarism: presenting work not one’s own
How do we aviod research fruad?
Scientific books and journals are peer-reviewed.
Journals are “not for profit.” What implications does this have, versus “for profit” publications?
What is the peer-review process like?
Double-blind (what does this mean?)
Most manuscripts require revisions. Editors and reviewers ensure that there is enough detail for a reader to verify factual claims and replicate the research.
Editorial corruption?
Also, authors are expected to list their affiliations as well as their sources of funding (why?)
This process is not perfect, but the discovery of fraud will fatally tarnish a researcher’s career.
the researchers role
Role as researcher might conflict with roles like good citizenship, and so forth.
One must be objective and value-free in doing research. But why must we be?
A neutral observer (but why might this be a problem?)
Not law enforcement (why might this be a problem?)
Not to be a CJ practitioner (why might this be a problem?)
Primary role is scientist!
Ethical issues (summary)
Avoid procedures that may harm subjects.
Participation must be voluntary
Honor commitments to respondents and respect reciprocity.
Exercise objectivity and professional integrity in doing and reporting research.
Protect confidentiality and privacy.
Most ethical questions involve weighing the possible benefits of research against potential harm to subjects.
Do no harm
Do nothing that will harm, especially if potential harm has not been explained to subjects and their informed consent given.
Researcher is personally responsible during all phases of research for harm
voluntary participation/Honor commitments
Cannot use force or threaten participation
But can sometimes trick people (i.e., use deception)
Sounds like a good idea, but how can we get results we can generalize?
I.e., are people who volunteer the same as people who don’t volunteer?
Keep any promises you make!
Reciprocate trust and obligation!
protect confidentiality
Confidentiality: researcher can connect data to individual subjects, but subject identity is screened in research report.
Anonymity: researcher cannot link individual subjects to their data.
HOw do we promote ethical research?
Fed. Regulation: Institutional Review Boards
Informed consent: involves relating research procedures and getting consent. Subject must understand purpose of research, risks and side effects, benefits, and procedures.
Problem 1: what if deception is needed?
Problem 2: can subjects appreciate/understand risks?
Special populations: youths, homeless, mentally retarded, and inmates. Why are these different from “regular” people?
No coercion to participate!
If one cannot avoid an ethical problem, consider using another research strategy
The experiemental model
Experiments minimally involve: (1) taking action, and (2) observing the consequences
scientific notation
X (treatment; independent variable);
Y (outcome; dependent variable);
Z (rival causal factor);
O (observation; measurement of dependent variable);
E (equivalence; randomization or matching);
1, 2 (time points)
How do we show causation
First, we must show a relationship between X and Y.
Second, we have to show that X appeared before Y did.
Sometimes, we can infer time order through logic (for example, it makes more sense that age causes crime than the other way around).
Third, we have to rule out rival explanations (spuriousness).
rival causal factors
Two types: internal (problems within the study that invalidate its results) and external (factors that limit generalizability)
Can we trust our results (I.e., does our research have validity)? There are two types of validity:
Internal: did a variable other than X cause a change in Y?
External: what limits how far I can generalize my results?
internal treats to validity- history
other specific events that took place during the period of the study that the researcher did not intend, but could have produced the results.
internal threats to validity- maturation
biological or psychological changes in the subjects not due to the treatment variable. Ask yourself: “Is the change due to natural causes or the experiment?”
internal threats to validity- testing effects
pretesting can lead to bias and foreknowledge that can lead to different results.
internal threats to validity- instrumentation
occurs when the researcher changes the measurement strategy. Changing the measures can influence the results.
internal threats to validity- statistical regression
refers to the tendency of groups selected because of extremely high or low scores to move back toward the average on a second testing.
internal threats to validity- selection bias
occurs when the researcher chooses nonequivalent groups for comparison.
internal treats to validity- experimental mortality
refers to the loss of subjects during the study, which might bias the results if the subjects lost are different from those remaining.
internal treats to validity- selection-maturation interaction
maturation can be more pronounced for some groups relative to comparison groups, which can affect results.
external treats to validity- testing effects
occurs when pretests make subjects unusually sensitive to the study (which means that the findings would not apply to those who did not participate in the study).
external treats to validity- selection bias
nonrepresentative samples cannot be generalized to larger populations
external treats to validity- reactivity
awareness of being studied
external threats to validity- multiple treatment interferences.
when more than one treatment is used on the same subjects (I.e., what caused the change?)
list internal threats to validity
History, maturation, testing, instrumentation, statistical regression, selection bias, experimental mortality, and selection-maturation interaction
list external threats to validity
These affect the representativeness of our results
Testing effects,Selection bias, Multiple-Treatment Interferences, reactivity
list Related Rival Causal Factors
The Hawthone effect, Post Hoc Error, Halo effect, placebo effect
Related rival causal factors- hawthorne effect
refers to atypical behavior by subjects because of the awareness of being studied.
rival causal factors- post hoc error
where people attribute causation to X (an earlier event) after becoming aware that Y has changed
rival causal factors- placebo effect
where subjects react to known stimulus in a predicted manner.
The best way to rule out threats to internal validity
have an individual receive the treatment (and see what happens)—then go backward in time—have the same individual not receive the treatment (and see what happens).

But it can’t be done! (or can it?)
experimental designs
characterized by random assignment to experimental and control groups (include classical, posttest only control group, and Solomon 4-group studies
quasi experiments
use precision matching to assign subjects (includes time-series and counter-balanced designs).
preexperimental designs
lack equivalence across groups and include one-and two group ex post facto and one-group before/after designs.
the classic experimental design
equivalence, pretests and posttests, experimental and control groups.
pre/post test
experiment/control group
necessary to ensure that experimental and control groups are alike; researcher employs random assignment (where all subjects have an equal probability of being selected into a particular group).
Matching is an alternative way of achieving equivalence, with both groups being matched on all characteristics the researcher believes to be important.Pretest: observation prior to treatment; posttest: observation after treatment
Experimental group: group of subjects that receive treatment; control group: group of subjects that do not receive treatment