Component 2-research methods Flashcards
(113 cards)
Identify the key features of an experiment [2]
The experimental method involves the manipulation of the IV to see if this has any effect on the DV, in order to establish cause-and-effect relationships. Additionally, any extraneous variables are controlled.
Explain the difference between the aims of a study and a hypothesis. [2]
Aims of a study is a statement of what a researcher(s) intends to find out in a research study, whereas a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement about the assumed relationship between variables.
Explain what is meant by ‘operationalisation’ [3]
To ‘operationalise’ is to ensure that variables are in a form that can be clearly tested. In order for a concept to be investigated, such as ‘educational attainment’, it needs to be specified more clearly, for example, this concept could be operationalised as ‘GCSE grade in maths’.
Explain why standardisation is important in research procedures. [2]
Standardisation is important in research procedures, as if the procedures are not standardised, the results may vary, due to changes in procedure rather than because of the IV. Additionally standardisation is important in research procedures, as if enables the study to be repeated.
what is meant by the AIM of the research?
A statement of what the researcher intends to investigate and the purpose of the study
Types of hypothesis: What is meant by the alternative/experimental hypothesis
A precise and testable statement which predicts what change(s) will occur to the DV when the IV is manipulated. Operationalisation is key to making the hypothesis testable.
Types of hypothesis: What is a Null Hypothesis?
A null hypothesis states that there will be no changes to the DV due to manipulating the IV. It states the results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.
Types of hypothesis: What is a non-directional hypothesis?
A non-directional hypothesis is
Deciding on a research question: alternative hypothesis
any hypothesis except the null hypothesis, that states that the IV will have an effect on the DV
Directional hypothesis
states the direction of the predicted effect that the IV will have on the DV
Non-Directional hypothesis
predicts simply that the IV will have an effect on the DV but does not state in what direction
null hypothesis
the assumption of no relationship between variables being studies
Independent variables (IV)
the variable that is manipulated in an experiment to test its effect on the DV
Dependent Variable (DV)
The variable being influenced by the IV, which can be measured
Co-Variables
2 variables that are examined to see whether a correlation exists between them
Operationalisation of variables
defining the variables clearly so that they can be objectively manipulated or measured
confounding variables
A varibale that is not the IV under study, but which varies systematically with the IV. Changes to the Dv may be due to confounding variables rather than the IV, so the outcome is meanngless. Coundfounding variables confound the results.
Extraneous variables
variables that do not vary systematically with the IV and therefore do not act as an alternative IV but may have an effect on the DV. They are nuisance variables that muddy the waters and make it more difficult to detect a significant effect.
Methodologies: experiments
- cause and effect measured by controlling and manipulating variables
- participants randomly allocated to experimental/control groups
Methodologies: laboratory experiments
- under controlled, artificial conditions
- IV manipulated, DV measured
- not necasarily a laboratory, just a controlled environment e.g. a classroom.
- experimental and controlled conditions
- researcher randomly allocates participants to experimental/controlled conditions
SRENGTHS:
- high level of control (can infer the IV caused the DV)
- easy to replicate (can check reliability)
WEAKNESSES:
- low ecological validity
- demand characteristics (if participants know they are being studied they may act in a certain way and affect validity)
Methodologies: experiments: Field experiments
- conducted in a natural environment
- IV manipulated so casual relationships can be formed between IV and measured DV
- participants unaware they are being studied.
STRENGTHS:
- higher ecological validity than laboratory experiments as conducted in a real setting without control of experimenter
- less demand characteristics, so increased validity
WEAKNESSES:
- unethical (participants unaware of study, less chance they can be debriefed)
- high chance of extraneous variables affecting results because less control than lab experiments.
Methodologies: experiments: quasi
quasi: researcher does not deliberately manipulate IV and participants not randomly allocated to experimental or control condition. E.G.
Natural: IV arises naturally and DV measured. Done when unethical to manipulate IV directly.
STRENGTHS:
- allows research where IV cannot be manipulated for practical or ethical issues, so different behaviours can be measures such as Schizophrenia
- real problems can be researched such as the effects of disaster on health which helps larger amount of people in more situations
WEAKNESSES:
- no casual relationships can be demonstrated as IV not directly manipulated so cannot be sure IV caused the DV.
- threat to internal validity due to less control of extraneous variables that may cause change to DV and not the IV.
Methodologies: participant observation
- researcher takes on role of a participant, whilst observing other participants’ behaviour
- researcher becomes part of group and doe not reveal themselves
STRENGTHS:
- less chance of demand characteristics as participants do not know they are being observed by researcher
- can research people who otherwise would be difficult to observe so researcher may find info they do not know existed
WEAKNESSES:
- observer bias (researcher expectations affect perception of events and they become subjective)
- unreliable findings as difficult to take notes during observation, so data relies on memory
Methodologies: non participant observation
- researcher observes and records participants behaviour from a distance without interfering
- participants unaware they are being observed
- pre-prepared categories decided and behaviour recorded categories as and when it happens
STRENGTHS:
- less chance of observer bias, as observer not taking part in the action
- no self report methods, researchers actually see participant behaviour
WEAKNESSES:
- observer bias (difficult to make judgements on thoughts and feelings of participants so observer may misinterpret behaviour based on own views and opinions)
- unethical