Drawing Conclusions and Reporting the Results

What is the primary reason scientists tend to avoid using the word "prove" when discussing theories?

If a hypothesis is disconfirmed in a systematic empirical study, what is the direct consequence for the theory from which it was derived?

What is described as the most prestigious method for reporting research findings?

According to the philosophical 'problem of induction', why can observing millions of white swans not definitively prove the statement 'All swans are white'?

What is a potential reason a scientist might not immediately abandon a theory if a disconfirming study is published?

What is the typical time range for an oral presentation at a scientific conference?

What is the primary function of a poster presentation at a conference as described in the chapter?

If a researcher's results are statistically significant and align with their hypothesis, what is the correct conclusion to draw regarding the theory?

What is a major advantage of presenting research at a conference before submitting it to a journal?

Given that statistical findings can reflect Type I or Type II errors, what term best describes their nature?

If confirming a hypothesis strengthens multiple competing theories simultaneously, what does this illustrate?

Manuscripts submitted for publication in psychology journals are typically expected to follow the writing style of which organization?

What is the key difference in the format of an oral presentation versus a poster presentation at a scientific conference?

What is the ultimate conclusion drawn in the chapter regarding the concept of 'scientific proof'?

What is a constructive action a researcher can take when faced with a disconfirmed hypothesis, rather than simply abandoning the associated theory?

A researcher summarizing their study on a large poster and standing by it for two hours to discuss with passersby is engaging in what form of dissemination?

In formal logic, if the premise is 'if theory A is true, then hypothesis B will be observed', what is the necessary conclusion if hypothesis B is NOT observed?

Why do scientists, in practice, not always adhere to the strict logical conclusion that a disconfirmed hypothesis disproves a theory?

Besides peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentations, what is another method of reporting research findings mentioned in the chapter?

If Zajonc had failed to find social facilitation in cockroaches, what conclusion could he have drawn that would allow drive theory to remain correct?

According to the chapter, what is the final step in the research process?

What is one of the three reasons provided in the chapter for why scientists treat even highly successful theories as subject to revision?

What does the text suggest about the peer-review process for chapters in edited books?

Under which circumstance is a scientific theory considered to be weakened?

If a researcher is giving an oral presentation at a conference that lasts for the maximum duration mentioned in the text, how long will they be speaking?

The statement that 'One cannot definitively prove a general principle... just by observing confirming cases' is a description of which philosophical concept?

What is a possible research-related reason for a disconfirmed hypothesis that does not automatically disprove the underlying theory?

Under what conditions do researchers eventually abandon their theories?

What is the direct effect on a theory when a hypothesis derived from it is confirmed?

What are the two primary types of conference presentations detailed in the chapter?

How long might a researcher expect to stand by their poster during a poster presentation session at a conference?

If a confirmed hypothesis supports several different theories, which of the following is true?

When does the text say that a disconfirmed hypothesis could be the result of a 'missed opportunity'?

Which action is part of the process of reporting results at a conference via an oral presentation?

What is the minimum duration for an oral presentation at a conference, according to the range provided in the text?

Why do scientists consider theories to be subject to revision based on 'new and unexpected observations'?

What does the chapter imply about the rigor of the peer-review process for a journal article compared to getting feedback at a conference?

If a study's results fail to support a hypothesis, and the researcher suspects a flaw in the study's procedure, this is an example of a disconfirmation being potentially due to a:

What is the relationship between confirming a hypothesis and proving a theory?

How are theories, even highly successful ones, regarded by scientists according to the text?

If a researcher presents a talk that lasts for 45 minutes and then answers questions, what type of presentation was it?

Which of the following is NOT one of the three reasons given for why scientists avoid the word 'prove'?

When are scientists most likely to replace their theories with more successful ones?

What is the primary role of statistics in the context of drawing conclusions from research?

If a presenter at a conference stands by their poster for 90 minutes, is this consistent with the typical duration mentioned in the text?

According to the chapter, why is a disconfirmed hypothesis not necessarily a failure for the researcher?

Which method of reporting findings is described as a 'fun way to disseminate findings'?

The final conclusion of the chapter emphasizes that because all research studies have flaws and statistics are probabilistic, there is only scientific evidence, not what?

If two different theories both predict the same outcome, and a study confirms that outcome, what is the implication for the theories?

When are theories supported, refuted, or modified?