The Theory-Corroboration Experiment--论文代写范文精选

目的是确定一些实质性的因果过程。相比之下,不管他们的实际相关性,有很多心理现象的解释。例如,大多数司机凭经验才意识到他们已经通过红灯，并没有停下。下面的paper代写范文进行讲述。

Abstract
The three control features are (a) a valid comparison baseline, (b) the constancy of conditions, and (c) provisions for excluding procedural artifacts. Given the differences in impetus and objectives, utilitarian and theory-corroboration experiments differ also in their theoretical foundation and their proximity to real-life phenomena. Much of the misunderstanding of, as well as the dissatisfaction with, the experimental approach is because theory-corroboration experiments are discussed and assessed with criteria that are more appropriate for utilitarian experiments. For example, it is not readily seen from the utilitarian experiment that (a) experimental data owe their meaning to three embedding conditional syllogisms, and (b) ecological validity is irrelevant, if not harmful altogether. The experimental approach to theory corroboration can be defended in the present relativistic milieu because of its control provisions. Moreover, it has been shown that there are no grounds for the critique in terms of the social psychology of the experiment.

Types of Experiments
Although all experiments share the same formal structure, two types of experiments may be distinguished in terms of the set of important issues listed in column 1 of Table 5. Experiments in the utilitarian tradition are atheoretical (i.e. indifferent to explanatory theories), the impetus of which is a practical question. The aim is to ascertain the causal efficacy of some substantive agent (e.g. a new drug) or procedure (e.g. using the phonic method to teach beginning readers). Hence, column 2 is the “Utilitarian” column (for the theoretical versus atheoretical distinction in nonexperimental research, see Interviewing and Observation). In contrast, regardless of their practical relevancy, many psychological phenomena invite explanations. For example, most drivers have the experience of realizing belatedly that they have gone through a red light without stopping. Why do drivers “see” the red light belatedly? The tenability of an explanation for phenomena like this has to be substantiated empirically. This requires a different sort of experiment: the theory-corroboration experiment.

The Utilitarian Experiment 
The experimental hypothesis of a utilitarian experiment is a simple re-phrasing of the practical question itself. For example, if the concern is about the relative merits of two methods of teaching beginning readers, the experimental question is simply “Do the phonic and whole-word methods produce different reading skills?” or “Does the phonic method produce higher reading performance than the whole-word method?” It follows that teaching method has to be the independent variable, and its experimental level has to be the phonic method of teaching. Moreover, the dependent variable has to be the reading performance of beginning readers. Experimenters in the utilitarian tradition do not often find it necessary to examine the reason why functional relations are what they are. If the “why” question is ever asked, the explanation would be an appeal to the regularity demonstrated. Nonetheless, they may invoke intervening variables as logical constructs so as to economize descriptive efforts. Literal replications are essential for the regularity envisaged. Hence, nothing is (or can be) changed in attempts to replicate experiments of this genre. Given the utilitarian objective, findings from these experiments are used to guide a practical course of action. For this reason, ecological validity is deemed important (i.e. the test situation and the experimental task must be as similar as possible to their counterparts found in the real-life phenomenon). Moreover, the magnitude of the substantive manipulation’s efficacy is important. However, this magnitude is not the effect size dealt with in statistics (see Statistics and its Role in Psychological Research).

The Theory-Corroboration Experiment 
The situation is very different with theory-corroboration experiments. The experimental question is not (and cannot be) the research impetus. To appreciate fully the logical foundation of theorycorroboration experimentation, it is necessary to distinguish between the explanatory theory (or substantive hypothesis), the research hypothesis, the experimental hypothesis, and the statistical hypothesis.

Phenomenon and Its Explanation 
Suppose that the phenomenon of interest is “seeing” belatedly a red light. Relevant to the understanding of the phenomenon is the fact that, paying attention to something else while driving, drivers fail to identify the red light ahead. To make sense of the phenomenon, it may be speculated that, so long as the drivers’ eyes are oriented in the correct direction, the red light is registered in the sensory visual store automatically. The said sensory information remains in the large-capacity, veridical, visual sensory store if it is not obstructed or erased by other visual inputs, and can be processed within 0.5 seconds. To the extent that there is empirical evidence in support of the speculation, the phenomenon is explained. As may be seen from Table 6, the research question is not about the phenomenon itself, but about its explanation (for a similar distinction in psychometrics, see The Construction and Use of Psychological Tests and Measures). Nor can the phenomenon itself be used as the evidential support for the theory. To do so would be putting forward a circular argument. At the same time, it is not possible to answer the question “Is there a transient, large-capacity, veridical visual buffer?” in the way “Is there a chair in front of us?” is answered for the simple reason that the said visual buffer is unobservable.

The Criterion of Falsification 
Three of numerous experimental hypotheses have been singled out in panel 4 of Table 6. They are in the form of a conditional proposition whose antecedent is a theoretical property of the postulated visual buffer. The consequent of the conditional proposition is an implication of the said property in a particular situation. Four observations may be made about the experimental hypotheses. First, none of the experimental hypotheses is about the to-be-explained phenomenon. Second, they differ from the research hypothesis (see panel 3 of Table 6). Third, they differ among themselves in that they deal with different theoretical properties of the hypothetical visual buffer. Fourth, the consequent of the conditional proposition is a criterion of rejection of the theoretical property depicted in the antecedent (hence, a criterion of falsification for the explanatory theory). That is, the explanatory theory has to be rejected if there is no evidential support for any of its theoretical properties.

The Statistical Null Hypothesis (H0) 9 
Also depicted in Table 6 are the three statistical null hypotheses (H0) for their respective experimental hypotheses. It may be seen that each H0 is a re-formulation of the consequent of an experimental hypothesis in terms of the parameters of the statistical populations defined by the test conditions (see Statistics and its Role in Psychological Research). That is, H0 is not the substantive or the research or the experimental hypothesis.

Criticisms of Experimental Psychology Revisited 
The experimental approach to psychological research is not without its critics. Hence, it is important to deal with the following issues: (a) How can one study objectively things that are not observable? (b) How objective are experimental data when they rely on unreliable observations? (c) How is objectivity possible if observations are theory dependent? (d) Conducting experiments implicates social interactions between experimenters and subjects. How is objectivity possible in view of the social psychology of the psychological experiment?

Empirical Study of the Unobservable 
The feasibility of studying the unobservable has been anticipated and dealt with in Section 5.1. Phenomenon and Its Explanation. That is, so long as the unobservable hypothetical structure is well defined enough to prescribe an observable consequence in a specific context, it is possible to design and conduct the appropriate experiment to test the hypothetical structure (see Tables 6 and 7). Moreover, the experimental manipulation is not predicated on the tangibility of the theoretical entity because it is the independent variable, not the theoretical entity that is being manipulated. The independent variable is manipulated as a means to allow the hypothetical structure to show its properties or characteristics. In short, the observable consequences of unobservable entities can be used in a theoretically informed way to ascertain the tenability of the theory. A similar position is 12 adopted in contemporary practice of psychological measurements (see the Construction and Use of Psychological Tests and Measurements).

It must be emphasized that the partial-report task is very unusual and difficult. To perform the partial-report task properly, subjects have to refrain from processing the stimulus until the probetone is presented. This means effectively not doing anything in the stimulus’s presence. As this passive mode is against the subjects’ habit, it is necessary to give them extensive training before collecting data. Specifically, it takes a large number of trials (100 or more) to render the data usable. At the same time, a large number of trials is also required. However, naive subjects would treat the task as the whole-report task: to start processing the items as soon as they are presented. For this reason, there is a disagreement about the visual sensory store because some investigators have failed to give their subject sufficient training or a sufficient number of trials.(论文代写)

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。(论文代写)
更多论文代写范文欢迎访问我们主页 www.51due.com 当然有论文代写需求可以和我们24小时在线客服 QQ:800020041 联系交流。-X(论文代写)