Research methods Flashcards
(82 cards)
State the 4 types of experiments
laboratory
field
natural
quasi
Outline and evaluate laboratory experiments
-researcher manipulates IV to measure its effect on DV
-conditions are heavily controlled to minimise the effects of extraneous variables on DV
-participants are aware that they are taking part in the experiment, due to the contrived nature of the situation which feels unlike real-life
Evaluations:
Strength - high degree of control over extraneous variables can be achieved
-hence researcher can prevent extraneous variables from becoming confounding variable that negatively affects DV
-provides high degree of internal validity
-allows for conclusions about cause and effect be drawn between IV and DV
Limitation - lacks ecological validity
-due to artificial nature of environment of the experiment, results may not be representative of everyday life
-tasks lack mundane realism
-hence cannot be generalised beyond the setting of the research
-furthermore, participants may display demand characteristics
-change in behaviour = reduces internal validity
Outline and evaluate field experiments
-carried out in natural conditions
-researcher manipulates IV to measure effect on DV
-any location that is not a lab
Evaluations:
strength - high ecological validity
-more natural setting
-results are more likely to be representative of everyday behavior
-however, less control over extraneous variables
-can distort findings
-reduces internal validity, as a firm cause and effect relationship cannot be established
-uncertain if any other factors apart from the IV had an effect on DV
Limitation - ethical issues associated with it
-often participants do not know they are in a psychological investigation
-cannot give informed consent
-hence, research may involve a breach of their privacy rights
-however, a cost-benefit analysis can be conducted prior to investigation
-ensures perceived outcomes of investigation outweigh any personal costs to those involved
Outline and evaluate natural experiments
-experimenter cannot manipulate the IV
-so the DV is simply measured and judged as the effect of an IV
Evaluations:
strength - high ecological validity
-more natural setting
-results are more likely to be representative of everyday behavior
-however, natural setting means less control over extraneous variables
-can distort findings
-reduces validity, as a firm cause and effect relationship cannot be established
-uncertain if any other factors apart from the IV had an effect on DV
strength - demand characteristics are unlikely
-participants are often unaware that they are part of a study
-less likely to adjust their natural behaviour according to their interpretation of the study’s purpose
-increases internal validity
limitation - possible for sample bias
-unable to randomly allocate participants to conditions
-extraneous variables that change with the pre-set IV group differences may confound the results
-hence a causal IV-DV effect is unlikely
limitation - ethical issues
-such as lack of informed consent commonly arises,
-as deception is often required;
-however, debriefing, once the observation/experiment has ended, is necessary.
Outline and evaluate quasi experiments
-contains a naturally occurring IV that already exists
-e.g. gender, age
-examines the effect of IV on DV
-can be conducted in a natural setting or laboratory
Evaluations:
strength - high ecological validity
-researcher cannot manipulate naturally occurring variables
-so findings can be easily generalised to real life settings
limitation - cannot prevent bias
-IV is a naturally occurring difference between the participants
-hence the level of IV they belong to is pre-decided
-psychologist is less certain that the IV alone has caused the effect
-other dispositional or environmental factors may have played a role
-however, quasi experiments allow researchers to compare different types of people easily
-provides insight into similarities and differences between these groups, which would not be ethically generated otherwise
-limitation - methodological issues
-often takes place under natural conditions
-no control over environment and extraneous variables
-makes it difficult to be sure that only the IV has affected DV
-however, when they take place in laboratory setting, extraneous variables are controlled
-strict conditions causes lower ecological validity
-findings cannot always be generalised to real life, as behaviour may not translate outside of the research environment
Outline and evaluate covert observations as an observational technique
-observing people without their knowledge
-may be informed of this post-observation
Evaluations:
strength - investigator effects are less likely
-investigator is hidden, so there is less chance of their direct/indirect behaviour having an impact on the performance of the participant
-hence less chance of demand characteristics, as they will not try to guess the aim of the observation if they are unaware of the observer’s presence
-participant behaviour will be more natural so increases internal validity
-furthermore, high ecological validity as natural behaviour is more representative of everyday life
-hence findings of observation can be generalised beyond the sample
limitation - ethical issues may arise
-participants are unaware of being observed
-cannot give fully informed consent or exercise their right to withdraw
-hence can be criticised for breaking ethical guidelines
-however, it s perfectly acceptable to observe behaviour in a public place (e.g. mall)
-hence, prior to the observation, investigator must assess whether privacy laws are being violated
Outline and evaluate overt observations as an observational technique
participants are aware of being observed
-e.g. publicly filming
Evaluations:
strength - more ethical than covert
-as participants are aware of observation, they can give fully informed consent and exercise their right to withdraw
-therefore, the reputation of the psychological research being ethical is protected
limitation - possibility of investigator effects
-bias can occur where unintentional behaviour of observer (e.g. body language, facial expressions) influences that of participant
-hence participants may change their behaviour by displaying demand characteristics
-may act in accordance with their perception of the research aims
-authentic behaviour not observed
-reduces internal validity of the observation
Outline and evaluate participant observations as an observational technique
-investigator conducting observation also takes part in the activity
Evaluations:
strength - researcher can obtain in-depth data
-as observer is in close proximity to participants, they can gain a unique insight into the phenomenon in question
-furthermore, observer is less likely to overlook any behaviour that an external observer might, due to nuances that can only be seen by becoming a participant in that activity
-therefore, this method observation allows a more comprehensive understanding of human behaviour
limitation - possibility of investigator effects
-bias can occur where unintentional behaviour of observer (e.g. body language, facial expressions) or their mere presence influences that of participant
-hence participants may change their behaviour by displaying demand characteristics
-may act in accordance with their perception of the research aims
-authentic behaviour not observed
-reduces internal validity of the observation
Outline and evaluate non-participant observations as an observational technique
-observer does not participate in the activity being observed
Evaluations:
strength - investigator effects are less likely
-observer is at distance or may not be visible
-unlikely that their behaviour will negatively impact that of the participants being observed
-hence behaviour is more likely to be natural
-furthermore, high ecological validity as natural behaviour is more representative of everyday life
-hence findings of observation can be generalised beyond the sample
limitation - data obtained may not be in-depth
-due to lack of proximity, observer may miss some details of interest
-hence unique insights which contribute to the understanding of human behaviour will be overlooked
Outline and evaluate naturalistic observations as an observational technique
-carried out in an unaltered setting
-observer does not interfere
Evaluations:
strength - high ecological validity
-naturally occurring behaviour is observed in the natural environment
-hence behaviour recorded is more likely to represent everyday life
-furthermore, it reflects spontaneous actions that occur incidentally
limitation -issues with ascertaining reliability
-naturally occurring behaviors are recorded as they unfold
-difficult for the exact same conditions to be replicated
-hence, test-retest method cannot be used with naturalistic observations, as researcher is not in control of variables
-often lacks applicability when this observational techno
Outline and evaluate controlled observations as an observational technique
-strict conditions
-extraneous variables controlled to avoid interference with IV
Evaluations:
strength -can be replicated to check for reliability
-high level of control
-standardized procedures, manipulation of IV and control over extraneous variables can be repeated by the same, or different researchers to assess reliability
limitation - low level of external validity
-behaviour is recorded in artificial environment where variables are subject to strict manipulation
-setting feels unnatural
-hence participant behaviour may be altered
-would not represent everyday behaviour
-causes ecological validity of findings to be questionable
Outline and evaluate structured observations as an observational technique
-researcher uses coded ‘schedules’ according to previously agreed formula to document behaviour and organised data into behavioural categories (when psychologists decide which specific behaviours must be examined)
-hence target behaviour is broken down into components that can be measured/observed
Evaluations:
strength - researcher can compare behaviour between participants and across groups
-use of operationalised behavioral categories makes the coding of data more systematic
-when there is more than 1 observer, the standardised behaviour schedule results in greater inter-observer reliability
-important for research methodologies to be consistent, so that accurate comparisons can be made
limitation -problems with ascertaining high internal validity
-researcher may miss critical behaviours duuring observation, which is pertinent to the aim of the investigation
-hence findings may not provide the full picture about the behaviours in question, as they could lack the finer details
-issue because what was intended to be measured was not achieved in its entirety
Outline and evaluate unstructured observations as an observational technique
-every instance of observed behaviour is recorded and described in as much detail as possible
-useful if the behaviour that the researchers are interested in does not occur very often
-more usual with naturalistic observation
Evaluations:
strength - richness of data obtained
-as behaviour is recorded in great detail, researhers can obtain a comprehensive view of human behaviour
-adds to internal validity of unstructured observations
limitation -
-prone to observer bias
-lack of objective behavioural categories
-hence observer may only record behaviour which is of subjective value to them
-not a valid representation of what is being displayed
-as a result, there could be a problem with inter-observer reliability, due to lack of consistency in the observation recorded
Outline and evaluate time sampling in observations
-researcher records all relevant behaviour at set points
-e.g. 15 seconds every 10 minutes
Strength - more flexible = can record unexpected types of behaviour
Limitation - can miss behaviour that happens outside of the recording periods
-lack of valuable insight
Outline and evaluate event sampling in observations
-researcher tallies every time a behaviour occurs from a list of operationalised behavioural categories
Strength - it can be recorded at any stage, as long as it’s on list of operationalised behaviours
Limitation - may miss relevant behaviour simply because it’s not on the list of behavioural categories
Outline and evaluate the use of behavioural categories in observations
What is a case study and why is it used?
-detailed analysis of an individual, event or a small group of people
-often used when rare behaviour is being investigated, which does not arise enough to warrant a larger study being conducted
-allows data to be collected and analysed on something that psychologists have very little understanding of
-hence acts as a starting-point for further research to take place
Evaluate the use of case studies in psychology
Limitation - only one individual or small group is studied
-difficult to generalise findings to wider population, as results are likely to be unique
-psychologists are unable to conclude with confidence that someone beyond the ‘case’ will behave the same way under similar circumstances
-therefore, lowers population validity
Limitation - research may be subjective
-especially when qualitative methods are used
-e.g. case study of Little Hans
-Freud developed an entire theory around what he observed
-no scientific or experimental evidence to support suggestions from his case study
-means that psychologists cannot be sure whether he objectively reported his findings
-hence, validity of conclusions are lowered, as research bias can interfere with the results of the study
Strength - variety of methods can be used
-helps to reduce sources of bias
-also offers alternative interpretations
-helps to gather more data to deepen our understanding of complex human behaviour
Strength - offers rich, detailed information about a situation
-unique insights can often be overlooked when only one variable is manipulated to measure its effect on another
-furthermore, case studies can be used where it is not ethical to experimentally examine
-e.g. case study of Genie (Rymer, 1993) allowed researchers to understand long-term effects of failure to form an attachment
-could not do this with a human participant unless it naturally occurred
Difference between aim and hypothesis
Aim - summarises purpose of the research
Hypothesis - a clear and precise prediction about the difference/relationship between the variables in the study
Difference between dependent and independent variables
DV - variable that research measures, and is affected when the IV changes
IV - variable that the researcher manipulates, and which is assumed to have a direct effect on the DV
What is operationalisation?
State the two types of experimental hypothesis
operationalisation - how a variable is clearly defined by the researcher (can be applied to IV, DV and co-variables)
directional/non-directional hypothesis
Outline the difference between directional and non-directional hypotheses and give an example of each
directional:
-predicts the specific nature of the difference between two or more variables
-key words: increase, decrease, higher, lower, positive, negative, more less
-e.g. There will be significant decrease in recall of names when age increases
non-directional:
-predicts that a difference will exist between two or more variables, but does not state the nature of it
-key word: difference
-e.g. There will be a significant difference in recall of names when age increases
What is a null hypothesis
states that there is no difference between groups or no relationship between variables
What are the two types of questionnaires?
open question
closed question