{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Underline - potential errors or extensions become apparent...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Underline, write questions and answers in the margins, and keep an idea log. Draw  a diagram of the procedure. Consider how the research bears on your interests. Look  for what's important.  If the world is perfectly understood, then there can be no surprises.  Contrariwise, if something surprises you, then your theoretical framework  is inadequate and needs development. If two seemingly similar procedures  produce different results, then something is wrong with your  understanding of the procedures. They are not actually similar in the  important respect of how they affect the dependent variable. Given that an  error has been made, something is not correctly understood and must be  resolved.  Researchers who propose theoretical accounts for phenomena cannot think  through every possible ramification. As you come to understand a theory, 
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: potential errors or extensions become apparent. This type of research tests the implications of theories to confirm or reject them. This is classic deductive "normal" science. Using the object in the lake from the first chapter as an example -- this would be deducing "if it is an steam shovel under there, then we should find a long row of high spots coming out of one end." You then test that prediction by probing around trying to find a boom. If response strength approaches asymptotic response strength on each reinforced trial, then presenting a compound stimulus of asymptotically conditioned stimuli should result in a response decrement on subsequent tests with isolated stimuli. (This is a counter intuitive prediction based on Rescorla-Wagner which is true.)...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}