PSY 5107 Week 1  Assignment Interpret the Scientific Method and Pseudoscience Studies

PSY 5107 Week 1  Assignment Interpret the Scientific Method and Pseudoscience Studies

PSY 5107 Week 1  Assignment Interpret the Scientific Method and Pseudoscience Studies

In the era of information technology, people are bombarded with multiple studies with various claims and conclusions. However, not all the studies one comes across are credible. A scientific study follows strict guidelines from methodology, and data collection, to the interpretation of results. The strict guideline ensures the quality and credibility of scientific studies. To meet the threshold for scientific research, a study must be deterministic, falsifiable, empirical, public, and provisional. Studies that do not meet this criterion are not considered full scientific studies referred to as pseudoscience studies. A pseudoscience study is considered one with flaws in methodology; hence not adopted into the scientific community. The purpose of this assessment is to explain pseudoscience studies and evaluate the credibility of the study I participated in using the elements of scientific research.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE ON; PSY 5107 Week 1  Assignment Interpret the Scientific Method and Pseudoscience Studies

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience refers to ideas or studies that appear factual and based on the scientific method, but in reality, they are not consistent with scientific guidelines. Pseudoscience studies are presented as scientific studies, but they lack the rigor, which is essential in determining the quality and credibility of research studies (Dawes, 2018). Pseudoscience studies have fundamental flaws in methodology; hence they remain unaccepted by the scientific body. Pseudoscience studies can deviate from scientific guidelines in various ways. For example, in the methodology, the researchers might skip a step, yet all the steps of scientific studies are required to create a credible and complete study. Similarly, the research might lay claim to a factor that is not verifiable because the studies cannot be replicated (Dawes, 2018). A scientific study must follow a methodology that is easily replicated. Other pseudoscience studies lay claim to characteristics that are immeasurable or untestable; hence it becomes difficult to prove their acclaimed qualities. A good example of this is the unconscious state popularized by Sigmund Freud in his Freudian theory. 

My Chosen Study

In the study participants on PsyToolKit website, I chose the experiment Fitts’s Law. The study is based on eye-hand coordination, which states that hand coordination is a response to what one sees. When a person sees an object, they estimate the distance between the object and the hand unconsciously for the hand to grasp the object. The experiment provides an opportunity to experience it using a demo. My demo was based on 20 attempts and produced a graph of a scattered plot, which more attempts, there is a chance of producing a more defined plot. Fitts’s Law shows that eye-hand coordination is based on the distance and size of the object. Hence the law states, “the amount of time required for a person to move a pointer to a target area is a function of the distance to the target divided by the size of the target” (Fitts, 1954). If the distance is long or the object is small, it would take longer to move compared to if the object is bigger and at a long distance.

The study I selected is scientific because it strictly follows the guidelines spelt out for scientific experiments. First, the study is empirical because it involves observation and experiment that leads to the documentation of certain patterns or behaviors. In Fitts’s Law, the experimentation involves recording the motor movement of the hand with eye coordination. Thus, it involves speed and accuracy, which occur as a tradeoff element (Tang et al., 2018). The second reason that makes the study credible is that it can easily be replicated. Replication means following the methodology used by a study to produce another research, which supports the conclusion drawn by the original source (Dawes, 2018)e. Replication of a study is the quality that allows it to be generalized to the larger public.

Furthermore, the selected experiment is open to revisions and serves the wider public, which is part of the requirements for a scientific study. The Fitts’s Law study is open to anyone who may want to improve it. Additionally, it is readily available for use by people. For instance, Fitts’s Law is a universal law used by everyone (Keshavarz et al., 2020). The law outlines the relationship between hand and eye coordination, a concept that has been applied by other researchers to further the study or use it to explain things. For example, Gillan and Bias (2018) use the concepts of Fitts’s Law to investigate the impact of the penalty on moving a cursor across the computer just like in Fitts’s experiment. The study concluded that penalty leads to motivation as the group that received the penalty was highly motivated while the group that did not receive the penalty showed no motivation. The ability to use the law in various studies means that it is available for revision and accessible to the public.

Finally, another way to evaluate whether a study is scientific is through publication in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Before publication, every article submitted to be published is thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it has no mistakes and meets the quality standards. The study I chose is published in journals, meaning it has undergone scrutiny to ensure its credibility. According to (Tang et al., 2018), Fitts’s Law is one of the most studied principles in psychology because its credibility has been established through publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Conclusion

Understanding the credibility of studies is critical in selecting quality sources to use for evidence in supporting care decisions. Some sources may appear credible but they are pseudoscience research because they lack strict application of the scientific guidelines. In the experiment exercise, I chose the study Fitts’s Law, which follows all the scientific criteria for a scientific study.

References

Dawes, G. W. (2018). Identifying pseudoscience: A social process criterion. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(3), 283-298.

Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47 (6), 381–391. doi:10.1037/h0055392.

Gillan, D. J., & Bias, R. G. (2018). Fitting Motivation to Fitts’ Law : Effect of a Penalty Contingency on Controlled Movement. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193121862106.

Keshavarz, H., Esmaeili Givi, M., & Norouzi, Y. (2020). Credibility evaluation of scientific information on websites: Designing and evaluating an exploratory model. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 52(4), 1086–1101. https://doi.org/10.117.

Tang, R., Shen, B., & Sang, Z. (2018). Fitts’ Law is modulated by movement history. Psychon Bull Rev , 25, 1833–1839 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1367-8.

Tang, R., Shen, B., Sang, Z. et al. Fitts’ Law is modulated by movement history. Psychon Bull Rev 25, 1833–1839 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1367-8. (n.d.).

BUY A CUSTOM- PAPER HERE ON; PSY 5107 Week 1  Assignment Interpret the Scientific Method and Pseudoscience Studies

This assignment allows you to benefit from the one-to-one teaching model at NCU while simultaneously collaborating with peers by submitting a well-supported perspective to the NCU Commons.

Begin by participating in one of the psychological research studies provided from the links in this week’s resources. The first resource includes a link to historical and landmark research studies in the field of psychology. The second includes current studies that are being conducted within the field of social psychology. The third and final link is to a listing of the top 10 psychology experiments in a wide variety of areas within the field of psychology.

After selecting a study and participating in it, see if you can discuss how this study meets the criteria for the scientific method. What were the key ingredients?

In your Commons post, include a description of what the word pseudoscience means, and provide an example of this type of finding from a research study within the field of psychology or another related field. Briefly detail why this study does not meet the criteria for science and what steps were overlooked, along with some discussion regarding why the results are not readily accepted within the larger scientific community. Where is the flaw in the method, logic, or conclusions of the study? What, if anything, could you do to remedy this – for example, how might you make the method more scientific and/or provide conclusions that are more logical and scientific?

To submit your work to your professor, copy the Commons post that you provided, and then paste this into a Word document, save it, and upload your work for submission to the Dropbox.

Length: 2-3 pages with references included at the bottom

References: Include a minimum of 2 scholarly resources in your answer.

The completed assignment should address all of the assignment requirements, exhibit evidence of concept knowledge, and demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the content presented in the course. The writing should integrate scholarly resources, reflect academic expectations and current APA standards, and adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy.

When applicable, conduct a Turnitin pre-check and then upload your completed assignment and click the Submit to Dropbox button.

cientific Method and Pseudoscience
In this first week of your course, you will learn more about the scientific method, how it works, and why it is important to follow when conducting psychological research. Generally, the scientific method involves a series of steps that are closely adhered to when researching a subject. When the scientific method is used, and when the results are readily and frequently replicated, it is a strong sign that the findings are valid or indicative of the truth. Another way to confirm that the results and conclusions are valid or represent the truth is when these findings are published in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, cited frequently, and are readily accepted and incorporated into the larger scientific community (Shermer, 2011).
In science, there are defining characteristics to be on the lookout for that distinguish science from ‘fake’ news or reports. These key characteristics include deterministic (laws or rules to predict behaviors), empirical (measurable/numeric data), falsifiable (testable and replicable results), provisional (open to revision), and public (beneficial to the larger community) (PsycLearn Research Methods, 2020).
So what is fake news? This is what researchers refer to as pseudoscience, or research results that do not adhere to the scientific method and are therefore not readily adopted into the scientific community at large. This occurs because researchers believe there are fundamental flaws in the method that was used to obtain the results. For example, Freud’s work is often heavily criticized because he focused on something called the unconscious. According to Freud, the unconscious is a force that motivates behavior which an individual is not completely aware of, and as such, they can not readily measure or test the existence of this concept. Given this limitation, Freud’s theory is not testable or falsifiable, and as such, an important component of the scientific method is overlooked. For many, Freud’s ideas are considered questionable, at best, for just this reason.
In today’s world, this might be equivalent to what is referred to as fake news, and it is important to realize that not all research reports that you hear about in the news or read and review in published research are equally valid truthful. In many cases, somewhere in the research process, or in the logic of the conclusions, steps have been skipped, and therefore, the results are not valid or accurate. As a result, the conclusions derived from studies that do not strictly adhere to the scientific method are considered pseudoscience or ‘almost’ but not quite a science. These types of studies should be viewed as questionable, at best (Shermer, 2011).
It is similar to cooking. When you rush or miss a few of the key ingredients, the end result is not as good. You want to take your time, be methodical and careful with your measurements, and following the directions, knowing that the end result will be that much better!
This is why it is important to select research studies that have been peer-reviewed whenever possible. These studies have a bit more credibility to them as a board of peer reviewers has scrutinized them for quality.
Some examples of pseudoscience that might fit here include astrology, or using your birthdate to predict your future, phrenology – or how the size and shape of your head determine your personality, ESP – or extra-sensory perception, meaning the ability to sense beyond the five senses, and subliminal advertising or messages that are given to you when you sleep that lead to significant changes in your behavior. Another clear example is the growing debate about vaccines causing autism and other developmental delays. There is no conclusive evidence that this is a direct cause for any of these concerns. The data is purely correlational. However, a growing number of anti-vaccers refuse to have their children vaccinated due to this fear (Matute et al., 2011).
So, what are the steps that are involved in the scientific method? Basically, these steps are as follows (PsycLearn Research Methods, 2020):
Launch in a separate window
With pseudoscience, similar to taking a shortcut when you are cooking or completing a project, the end result does not usually come out as good when you do not take your time, you skip some of the steps, or miss some ingredients. See if you can identify where the steps were skipped and what was missing when you look to identify research reports that are considered to be pseudoscience in your assignment this week.
References
Matute, H., Yarritu, I., & Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 392–405.
PsycLearn Research Methods Version 1.4 (2020). CogBooks, American Psychological Association.
Shermer, M. (2011, September 1). What is Pseudoscience? Scientific American.
Looking Ahead:
For an assignment due in Week 3, you are required to meet with your professor. You may do so by telephone or with electronic communications such as Skype or Zoom. Please plan your time accordingly and download the Skype or Zoom software if you haven’t done so yet, and then contact your professor as soon as possible to set up your meeting during Week 3.
Signature Assignment Preview
The culminating signature assignment due towards the end of the course may require you to complete some work ahead of the due date. To ensure you are prepared and have adequate time to complete this assignment, please review the instructions by looking ahead to the signature assignment. Contact your professor if you have questions.
Weekly Resources and Assignments
Review the resources from the Course Resources link, located in the top navigation bar, to prepare for this week’s assignments. The resources may include textbook reading assignments, journal articles, websites, links to tools or software, videos, handouts, rubrics, etc.