Principles of scientific thinkingRuling out rival hypothesisThe scenario has failed to rule out the rival hypothesis. As mentioned by Lilienfeld et al.(2017), this principle consists of excluding important alternative explanations for the findings. The scenario stated that by using the scattered-light filter on a camera, the number of likes and comments on an Instagram picture increases. Although it mentioned a study to support the initial claim, it did not take into consideration other stimuli that might have influenced the results obtained. For instance, some participants might have used popular hashtags, posted at different times, tagged a location or promoted their posts during the 24-hour period. These alternative hypotheses could increase the rate of Instagram engagement since it would help widen the reach of the posts. In order to follow this scientific principle, the researchers should conduct a study by separating the participants into four distinct categories; scattered-light filter, hashtags, locations, and promotion. Also, they should be asked to post simultaneously to prevent the effect of timing on the results. By comparing the various results obtained, the explanation behind the initial claim would be determined. If the original explanation is correct and other hypotheses have been considered and vetted, a valid conclusion will be reached.ReplicabilityThe scenario has failed to show the scientific principle of replicability. As explained inclass (Vahedi, 2019), replicability is the duplication of a studys findings by independent investigators in order to verify the results. This was not seen in this scenario since only Dr. Abernathys study was shown to test whether using a scattered-light filter improved the amount of Instagram engagement. No other researchers were mentioned in the scenario, which could question the validity of the results. Lilienfeld et al. (2017) stated that if findings cannot be duplicated, the likelihood that the original findings occurred due to chance, increases. In order to follow this scientific principle, the scenario should include studies conducted by other independent researchers, using similar methods. If similar results are obtained during the replication, then the findings are less likely to be a coincidence and can be generalized to a larger sample size. However, if the original findings cannot be reproduced, then it is possible that there might be other variables influencing the results of the experiment.Warning signTalk of proof instead of evidenceOne of the warning signs of pseudoscience included in this scenario is talk of proofinstead of evidence. As defined in class (Vahedi, 2019), science does not attempt to prove claims but rather supports hypotheses and theories. Since research has shown that our present knowledge is insufficient and could be partially incorrect, it is difficult to prove a claim since future evidence might go against it. In this scenario, Dr. Abernathy states that this study proves that a maximum number of likes and comments under an Instagram picture can be obtained by using a scattered-light filter on a digital camera. This is a pseudoscientific claim since the study focuses on the end result and does not provide additional evidence as to how the filter improves the Instagram engagement. As mentioned by Lilienfeld et al. (2017), this pseudoscientific sign is problematic since it can involve opportunity cost or indirect harm, direct harm and prevent scientific thinking. In order to exclude this warning sign, the study should include evidence, statistics and provide valid explanations regarding the initial claim.Research methodsSocial desirability biasThis scenario included the research methodology of social desirability bias. Asmentioned in class (Vahedi, 2019),this is defined as the tendency of some participants to improve their performance by providing desirable results. Since the participants were students of Dr. Abernathy, they might have had given untruthful answers and may have tried hard at something to impress the experimenter. The students might have tried to look polite and provide positive results in favour of their professor. For instance, one of the participants, Sarah, mentioned that she will definitely purchase the filter since she was satisfied with the results. However, it is possible that she might not be stating the truth. It could be that she does not want to buy the product but is saying otherwise to simply satisfy the experimenter. Also, some participants might have asked other friends or acquaintances to like and comment on their pictures to improve the results. In order to improve this research methodology, the researcher should recruit random participants from other classes, who are unfamiliar to the professor. Moreover, the experimenter should not reveal the purpose of the study since that may cause the participants to change or alter their results.Unrepresentative or biased sampleThis research included the research methodology of including an unrepresentative orbiased sample. As defined in class (Vahedi, 2019), this occurs when the sample of participants is not representative of the entire population. In this scenario, the findings were obtained from 30 female students ranging from 18-22 years old. The researcher only studied a small group of people and the finding might have been influenced by the sample. For instance, the experimenter might have decided to select young females since there were more female students in his Introductory Psychology class. In order to improve this research methodology, the researcher should perform a random selection of males and females from other classes and include a larger sample size. Furthermore, participants less than 18 years old and greater than 22 years old should be tested. By comparing both sexes and different age groups together, the findings might be altered. It is possible that the number of likes and comments between males and females might vary. It could be that a certain age group of participants receives an increase or decrease in the rate of Instagram engagement.ReferencesLilienfeld, S.O., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L.L., Woolf, N.J., Cramer, K.M. & Schmaltz, R.(2017). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding. (3rded.). Toronto, ON: Pearson.Vahedi, Z. (2019, May). Psychology and Scientific Thinking. Psychology 102:Introduction to Psychology I. Lecture conducted from Ryerson University, Toronto, ON.Vahedi, Z. (2019, May). Research Methods. Psychology 102: Introduction to PsychologyLecture conducted from Ryerson University, Toronto, ON.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more
