Scenario C
Naive realism implies that the world is exactly the way we perceive it (Lilienfeld). This fact brings about mental short cut especially for the Dr in scenario C who has biased assumptions of the effects of cycling. Therefore, with the biased assumptions the researcher will ignore all the background information of the other participants in the research. The problem, in this case, is that the world is not exactly in the manner we want to see it. In scenario C, the doctor has expectations that the participants will have the same results as him and therefore, he relied on his intuitive judgment.
Confirmation bias
The other error that can be observed from scenario C has to do with confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is stated to be the tendency in, which a researcher tries to seek evidence based on their hypothesis and thus tries to dismiss or distort any other evidence that is not aligned with theirs (Lilienfeld). This fact is considered to be a cognitive phenomenon (Breakwell). The clinician will concentrate on finding the hits and forget about the misses. The researcher is stated to engage in a confrontational tactic with the client and therefore, with their intervention subsequent results will occur. This case can be observed from scenario C where the researcher intervened in the first research by rewarding the participants in order to get certain results.
In the second study, the clinician ensured that some of the participants would contact them directly and give them rewards such as the chocolate in order for them to continue working out. The desired results could occur because the people were given rewards so as to exercise. The other half of the participants who were not rewarded, the clinician did not meet them; instead, they were told to reply on a website. Without any motivation, the cyclist did not perform well. Therefore, those given rewards had to perform well because of the expectations expected of them by the researchers.
Illusion of control
There are many scientists who overestimate their ability to influence events in a particular study (Lilienfeld). In this case, the clinician used many methods in order to get the desired results. This led the researcher to believe that they had more power over the client’s outcome or results. Some of the techniques used are rewards in order to motivate the participants into working harder in cycling. The researcher is aware of the findings of the results because of their personal background and the results that occurred. This fact will make them to the desire for the same kind of results from the other participants. However, the intended results could not occur because some people got sick during the period of research. This fact shows that the researcher overestimated the expected outcome, and perhaps this is the reason why they decided to reward the participants in order to get the intended outcome.
Analysis of the claims
In looking at the research conducted in scenario C, one thing that can be observed from the principle of scientific thinking is about replication (Lilienfeld and Patihis, p.12). The research was based on the life changes that occurred to Dr. Sarpal after he stated cycling. His health changed for the better and therefore, he became curious if the same thing could happen to other people. So many other researchers have done this type of study. Therefore, in looking at the results, it can be observed to be similar to other research conducted. Most of those research show that there was a reward given to the participants. This reward has influenced the results of the investigation.
They only look for evidence which confirms their hypothesis
In looking at science, most of the studies that have been conducted are usually done in order to disprove a theory (Gauch). However, there are some rare cases where researchers try to approve their hypothesis. This fact can be observed from the research conducted in scenario C that was trying to determine whether cycling reduces some health issues. This fact is from a pseudoscientist point of view. Therefore, pseudoscientist when conducting studies they are always trying to prove their hypothesis (Hill).
Analysis of scenario C
The study was conducted in order to determine whether cycling can help to reduce health issues. Dr. Sarpal before carrying out the study he practiced cycling for a few months and his health improved dramatically. This fact prompted him to try and experiment in order to find if this result could happen to others. The participants were picked randomly for the two studies (Heiman). The independent variable in the research is aerobic exercises such as cycling helps to prevent illness. The dependent variable, in this case, is motivation is vital in helping a person to exercise. In the study, it could be observed that all the individuals who were given rewards become motivated into exercising twice as hard. On the other hands, the people who were not receiving any rewards did not put much effort in exercising, and thus some ended up being sick.
There are a number of limitations that can be observed from the research (Lilienfeld). These constraints are brought on by social desirability bias. The participants, especially in the second study, may not tell the truth about the experiment. Some of them may not exercise but will blog in the website that they are exercising. The reason for doing this is because they are trying to please the researcher by lying. The reactivity of the participants might be compromised in the study. When collecting data the researcher and his assistant kept a close eye on the participants who were being rewarded. This close eye inspection changed the behaviors of the participants in that they over exercised in order to satisfy the researchers. This fact could distort the findings because of the responses being observed in the study could be altered, and thus, it would distort the findings of the research.
Work cited
Breakwell, Glynis M. Research Methods in Psychology. Los Angeles: SAGE Pub., 2012. Print
Gauch, Hugh G. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print
Heiman, Gary. Research Methods in Psychology. Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print
Hill, Sharon. The Trouble with Pseudoscience—It Can Be a Catastrophe. Skeptical Inquirer, 2013. Print
Lilienfeld, Scott O. and Patihis Lawrence. "Warning Signs That Something is Not Scientific." Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (2010): 1-38. Print
Lilienfeld, Scott O. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Sage Publications, 2014. Print
Morling, Beth. Research Methods in Psychology: Evaluating a World of Information, Parts 1-9. W W Norton & Company Incorporated, 2014. Print
Paul G. Nestor, Russell K. Schutt. Research Methods in Psychology: Investigating Human Behavior. SAGE Publications, 2014. Print
Stangor, Charles. Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2007. Print
Viswanathan, Madhu. Measurement Error and Research Design. SAGE Publications, 2005. Print
