Dr Williams Correlation
Dr. Williams wanted to see if the amount of television a person watched was related to that person’s depression or lack thereof. To find this out, Dr. Williams conducted a correlational study. A correlation is a shared relationship or connection between two or more things. A correlation can be either positive, negative, or zero. A positive correlation is when factors or variables moves directly of each other, meaning if one variable goes down, the other will as well and vice versa. A negative correlation is when factors or variables move inversely of each other, meaning if one variable goes up, then the other will go down and vice versa. When a correlation is zero, it means that the factors or variables have no relationship or connection to
…show more content…
each other. In Dr. Williams study, he found a positive correlation of r= .6. The r is the correlation coefficient, and it cannot go higher than 1 or lower than -1. No matter the positivity or negativity of a correlation coefficient, the higher the numerical value, the stronger the correlation is. So the positive correlation of r= .6 is good because it means that there is a strong relationship between the amount of television watched and the depression levels of a person. It is good to always remember that correlation does not imply causation, meaning that, although related, the amount of television a person watches could potentially not be the cause of a person's depression levels.
For example, people who are depressed might not have a healthy social life so they watch a lot of television in replacement of their unhealthy social life. This would still show a correlation between television watching and depression levels in a person, but the television watching is not the cause of the depression. The same could be said for age. Many teenagers watch television, and many teens also get depression. Prior to reaching adulthood, about 20% of teens will experience depression (centerfordiscovery.com). This would show a correlation, but not a causation. Another example could be of income. The richer a person is, the more depressed they could be (Walton, Alice G., Forbes). More wealthy people are more likely to have more technology like televisions that they watch so there would be a correlation between depression and television watching in this case, but not a cause for …show more content…
depression.
If Dr.
Williams tested his hypothesis that watching television causes depression, then he would conduct an experiment. His experiment would have an independent and dependent variable. The independent variable is what is changed and manipulated by the person conducting the experiment, and the dependent variable is what an the conductor of the experiment calculates or measures to determine if the independent variable has an effect. The independent variable in Dr. William’s experiment would be the amount of television watched, and the dependent variable would be the depression levels. Dr. Williams’ control group, the group that does not get manipulated, would be the group that would watch no television, and his experimental group, the group that gets manipulated, would be the group that would watch television. To make his experiment have a strong internal validity, the measure of how well an experiment is conducted, Dr. Williams could randomly assign the patients in the control group and the experimental group. This keeps experimenter’s bias out of the experiment, and ensures equal control and experimental groups. Dr. Williams could also keep the conditions of the experiment as same as possible. This would keep from the two groups from having many differences, aside from the independent variable. Finally, Dr. Williams could make sure when he is getting patients for his experiment that he gets a large population. This makes it more comparable to the real
world.
If Dr. Williams executed the experiment written up above, the participants in the experiment would be protected from harm. However, if possible, it would be wise to add help measures to anyone who gets depression from or during the experiment. The potential benefits of the knowledge gained from the study outweighs the potential harm because it could help show one of the causes of depression, which is a detrimental illness that can cause people to commit suicide.
each other. In Dr. Williams study, he found a positive correlation of r= .6. The r is the correlation coefficient, and it cannot go higher than 1 or lower than -1. No matter the positivity or negativity of a correlation coefficient, the higher the numerical value, the stronger the correlation is. So the positive correlation of r= .6 is good because it means that there is a strong relationship between the amount of television watched and the depression levels of a person. It is good to always remember that correlation does not imply causation, meaning that, although related, the amount of television a person watches could potentially not be the cause of a person's depression levels.
For example, people who are depressed might not have a healthy social life so they watch a lot of television in replacement of their unhealthy social life. This would still show a correlation between television watching and depression levels in a person, but the television watching is not the cause of the depression. The same could be said for age. Many teenagers watch television, and many teens also get depression. Prior to reaching adulthood, about 20% of teens will experience depression (centerfordiscovery.com). This would show a correlation, but not a causation. Another example could be of income. The richer a person is, the more depressed they could be (Walton, Alice G., Forbes). More wealthy people are more likely to have more technology like televisions that they watch so there would be a correlation between depression and television watching in this case, but not a cause for …show more content…
depression.
If Dr.
Williams tested his hypothesis that watching television causes depression, then he would conduct an experiment. His experiment would have an independent and dependent variable. The independent variable is what is changed and manipulated by the person conducting the experiment, and the dependent variable is what an the conductor of the experiment calculates or measures to determine if the independent variable has an effect. The independent variable in Dr. William’s experiment would be the amount of television watched, and the dependent variable would be the depression levels. Dr. Williams’ control group, the group that does not get manipulated, would be the group that would watch no television, and his experimental group, the group that gets manipulated, would be the group that would watch television. To make his experiment have a strong internal validity, the measure of how well an experiment is conducted, Dr. Williams could randomly assign the patients in the control group and the experimental group. This keeps experimenter’s bias out of the experiment, and ensures equal control and experimental groups. Dr. Williams could also keep the conditions of the experiment as same as possible. This would keep from the two groups from having many differences, aside from the independent variable. Finally, Dr. Williams could make sure when he is getting patients for his experiment that he gets a large population. This makes it more comparable to the real
world.
If Dr. Williams executed the experiment written up above, the participants in the experiment would be protected from harm. However, if possible, it would be wise to add help measures to anyone who gets depression from or during the experiment. The potential benefits of the knowledge gained from the study outweighs the potential harm because it could help show one of the causes of depression, which is a detrimental illness that can cause people to commit suicide.