Psychological Research – Crash Course Psychology #2

Psychological Research – Crash Course Psychology #2



You can directly support Crash Course at http://www.subbable.com/crashcourse Subscribe for as little as $0 to keep up with everything we’re doing. Also, if you can afford to pay a little every month, it really helps us to continue producing great content.

So how do we apply the scientific method to psychological research? Lots of ways, but today Hank talks about case studies, naturalistic observation, surveys and interviews, and experimentation. Also he covers different kinds of bias in experimentation and how research practices help us avoid them.

Table of Contents

The Scientific Method 2:06
Case Studies 3:05
Naturalistic Observation 3:48
Surveys and Interviews 4:15
Experimentation 6:35
Proper Research Practices 8:40

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/YouTubeCrashCourse
Twitter – http://www.twitter.com/TheCrashCourse
Tumblr – http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com
Support CrashCourse on Subbable: http://subbable.com/crashcourse

source

February 11, 2014 / 37 Comments / by / in
  • 0:50 it's known as confirmation bias and not hindsight bias.

  • but which group finished the maze faster? XD

  • But but but.. What's the result of the caffeine experiment?! Leave me hanging -_-

  • can you please talk slower … 🙂

  • for those of you saying he talks too fast..what i do is i take notes from the textbook, then i watch crash course. you really have to focus ALOT. for the psychology crash course #1, i would play it, then if i missed something or didn't completely understand something i would rewind a couple seconds. then i would rewatch the whole video multiple times. with the captions on btw. i also looked up the topics i didnt understand like functionalism vs structuralism, etc. on youtube and other sites to fully understand the concepts. i'm doing summer work rn but i got 100% on the unit 1 quiz on quia so yay

  • annoying

  • 2:23 I think it should be "Question" and "Hypothesis" instead of "Question" and "Theory".  I believe "Theory" is used in science as the best explanation available that explains the observed evidence.  I think you start with an Hypothesis and hopefully will end up with a Theory.

  • 1:18 Actually you have twice as much chances of getting alternating heads and tales as you getting all tales. If you want to make your statement work, you'd have to include that the line starts with heads to exlude the line tale-head-tale-head-tale which also is categorised as alternating heads and tales.

  • Anyone else watching this because they are genuinely interested in it and not just because they have to?

  • why so fast?

  • I feel so bad for Carl 🙁

  • Lol, I actually made some coffee for myself before I started up my classes and had been drinking for a bit before I came across this video. Wonder if it has a positive effect on my.

  • Thank you for making these videos! I'm including this one on my Blackboard site for my psych research course. 🙂

  • Psychology was dead, Brain Science achieved eternal winning.

  • This guy cracks me up.

  • Did anyone else see the psychologist naturally observing him as he explained it?

  • You're a humerous and genius teacher!

  • You the MVP. I've been stuck on chapter 1 of my intro to Psychology textbook for a week. This video helped a lot.

  • History of the entire world I guess

  • So how much does Apple pay you to use that MacBook Pro to make peeps falsely believe Apple makes you smarter if you use their tech?

  • 3:55 oh he's actually being watched.

  • Best part of you talking is when your face move… umm….

  • Doesn't hypothesis come before making a theory?

  • 7:40 i did not guess it

  • اى سويير انى مستمتعه جدا جدا والله
    بس اعصابى تعبت من الكلام بسرعه ده 💔💔💔

  • thanks for Arabic subtitle ❤

  • thnx man but i know those sine i born

  • Exam Thursday. Me love you long time

  • very helpful!

  • Dude starts rapping at 5:59

  • hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when the idea of flipping 5 coins has an equal chance of being all heads, all tails or a mix of the two; Does that same principle not apply to random sampling? Surely asking 100 passivist students about gun control is misleading, but going into the world and selecting 100 random people still nets you an equal chance of selecting 100 passivists….or 100 gun nuts….or a mix of the two? Maybe that's not the right way to think about it but it seems to be rolling 100 die and getting 100 6's is just as likely as rolling one dice 100 times and getting the same result?

  • Stop speaking to fast @crashcourse

  • I wish I could talk this fast…

  • I like My own comments because no one else will…

  • The smell of coffee makes me wanna go poo.

%d bloggers like this: