research methods Flashcards
experimental methods
What are four different types of experiment:
- Laboratory experiment
- Field experiment
- Natural experiment
- Quasi experiment
experimental methods
Explain Laboratory Experiments
+ EVALUATION
- Laboratory experiments are conducted under specified controlled conditions in which the researcher manipulates the independent variable (IV) to measure the effect on the dependent variable (DV).
- The conditions are heavily controlled in order to minimise the effect of any extraneous variables, to prevent them from becoming a confounding variable which might adversely affect the DV.
- Participants will be aware that they are taking part in an investigation due to the contrived nature of the situation which may feel unlike real‐life.
EVALUATING LAB EXPERIMENTS
1. A strength of laboratory experiments is the high degree of control over extraneous variables which can be achieved. A researcher is therefore able, in most cases, to prevent extraneous variables from becoming confounding variables which negatively affect the DV. This provides a high degree of internal validity allowing for conclusions about cause and effect to be drawn between the IV and DV.
- A limitation of laboratory experiments is that they can lack external validity. The artificial nature of the environment in which the investigation is taking place means that the study can lack ecological validity. This means that the findings of the study cannot always be generalised to settings beyond the laboratory as the tasks often lack mundane realism and would not be everyday life occurrences. Since participants know they are being investigated their behaviour can also change in an unnatural manner resulting in demand characteristics being seen.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
what is field experiments?
+ EVALUATION
- Field experiments are carried out in natural conditions, in which the researcher manipulates the independent variable (IV) to measure the effect on the dependent variable (DV).
- The ‘field’ is considered any location which is not a laboratory.
- Participants in a field experiment typically do not know that they are taking part in an investigation with a view to observing more natural behaviour.
EVALUATION:
▪ The natural setting means that field experiments often have a higher level of ecological validity, in comparison to laboratory studies. This means that the results are more likely to be representative of behaviour witnessed in everyday life. However, because the setting is more natural, there is less control over extraneous variables. These can then become confounding variables and distort the findings meaning a firm cause and effect relationship cannot be drawn since other factors could have had an impact on the DV, other than the IV.
▪ There are important ethical issues associated with field experiments. Since participants are often unaware that they are in fact participants in a psychological investigation, they cannot give informed consent to take part. As such, the research may involve a breach of their privacy rights and a cost‐ benefit analysis will need to be conducted before proceeding with any study to ensure the perceived outcomes from the research will outweigh any personal costs to those involved.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
NATURAL EXPERIMENT?
+ EVALUATION
- In a natural experiment, the researcher does not manipulate the IV and instead examines the effect of an existing IV on the dependent variable (DV).
- This IV is naturally occurring, such as a flood or earthquake, and the behaviour of people affected is either compared to their own behaviour beforehand, when possible, or with a control group who have not encountered the IV.
- It is important to note that it is the IV which is natural in this type of experiment, and not necessarily the context in which the investigation is taking place since participants could be tested in a laboratory as part of the study.
EVALUATION:
- The naturally occurring IV means that natural experiments often have a higher level of external validity compared to laboratory and field experiments. These types of investigations are considered high in ecological validity given the real‐life issues that are being studied rather than manipulated artificially. However, natural experiments have no control over the environment and subsequent extraneous variables, which means that it is difficult for the research to accurately assess the effects of the IV on the DV. It may be that a confounding variable has affected the results so a cause and effect relationship must be drawn with extreme caution, if at all.
- A strength of using natural experiments is the unique insights gained into real‐life situations from using this methodology. Investigating a naturally occurring IV allows for research to be conducted into areas of psychology that could not be generated for ethical reasons or because of logistical and practical constraints. However, a naturally occurring event that interests researchers may only occur very rarely. This limits the opportunity to generalise the results to other similar events or circumstances.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
QUASI EXPERIMENT
+ EVALUATION
- Quasi experiments also contain a naturally occurring independent variable (IV), but one which already exists.
- However, in this instance the IV is a difference between people such as gender, age or a personality trait.
- The researcher examines the effect of this IV on the dependent variable (DV).
- Quasi experiments do not have to be conducted in a natural setting, although they often are.
- They may also be conducted in a laboratory setting, under controlled conditions.
EVALUATIONS:
▪ A limitation of quasi experiments is that participants cannot be randomly allocated to research conditions to remove the issue of bias in the procedure. Since the IV is a naturally occurring difference between the participants, the level of IV to which they belong is predecided. This means the psychologist will be less certain that the IV alone will have caused the effect which is measured through the DV as other dispositional or environmental factors may have played a role in the outcome. That being said, quasi experiments allow researchers to compare different types of people easily to provide insight into similarities or differences between these groups which could not be ethically generated otherwise.
▪ There are methodological issues associated with conducting quasi experiments. When quasi experiments take place under natural conditions, there is no control over the environment and subsequent extraneous variables, making it difficult to be sure that factors such as age, gender or ethnicity have affected the DV. On the other hand, when quasi experiments take place under laboratory conditions the high level of control means that the research often lacks ecological validity, and the findings cannot always be generalised to a real‐life setting since behaviour may not translate outside of the research environment.
OBSERVATIONAL TECHNIQUES:
What are the observational techniques?
When conducting an observation, the researcher has the choice between:
▪ Covert and overt
▪ Participant and non‐participant
▪ Naturalistic and controlled
▪ Structured and unstructured
OBSERVATIONAL TECHNIQUES:
COVERT OBSERVATIONS
+ EVALUATION
- A covert observation is also known as ‘undisclosed’ observation and consists of observing people without their knowledge; for example, using a one‐way mirror (covert non‐participant) or joining a group as a member (covert participant).
- Participants may be informed of their involvement in the study after the observation has taken place.
Evaluating Covert Observations :
* A strength of covert observation compared to overt observation is that investigator effects are less likely.
* Since the investigator is hidden in this type of observation there is less chance that their direct or indirect behaviour will have an impact on the performance of the participants.
* As a result, there is less chance of demand characteristics occurring whereby the participant tries to guess the aim of the investigation and act accordingly, since they are unaware that they are being observed.
* This means that the participants’ behaviour seen will be more natural and representative of their everyday behaviour.
- There are ethical issues associated with the covert method of observation inherent within its design. As participants are not aware they are taking part in an investigation, they cannot give fully informed consent nor exercise their right to withdraw. That being said, it is perfectly acceptable to observe human behaviour in a public place such as a shopping centre. This means that an assessment is made by the investigator before the observation begins to ensure that no privacy laws are being violated.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS:
OVERT OBSERVATION:
+ EVALUATION
- An overt observation is an observational technique where the observations are ‘open’ and the participants know/are aware that they are being observed.
- For example, filming publicly (overt non‐participant) or joining a class and informing the other students that you are carrying out an observation (overt participant).
**Evaluating Overt Observations **
* A strength of the overt method is that it is often more ethical than the covert method. Since the participants are aware that their behaviour is being observed for the purposes of a psychological investigation, it is possible to inform them in advance of the aims and thus obtain informed consent. This awareness of participation also allows participants to exercise their right to withdraw themselves or their data from the investigation, before, during or after the observation is conducted. As a result, the reputation of psychological research as being ethical is protected.
- A drawback of using an overt style of observation is the possibility of investigator effects. It is possible for a bias to occur whereby what the investigator does influences the behaviour of the participants in a way which was not intended (e.g. body language or facial expressions). As a result, the participants may change their behaviour through demand characteristics and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims. Therefore, authentic and natural behaviour is not being observed, thus reducing the internal validity of the observation because it is overt.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS:
PARTICIPANT OBSERVATIONS
+ EVALUATION
- In a participant observation, the person who is conducting the observation also takes part in the activity being observed.
- It can be either covert (a group member quietly observing others without their knowledge) or overt (a group member using a camera to record the behaviour of other members with their full knowledge).
Evaluating Participant Observations ▪
* A strength of using participant observations in psychological research is that the researcher can obtain in‐depth data. Since the observer is in close proximity to the participants, they are able to gain a unique insight into the phenomenon in question. In addition, through participating they are unlikely to overlook any behaviour that, as an external observer, would be missed due to nuances only seen by becoming a participant of the activity itself. This means that a comprehensive understanding of human behaviour can be achieved using this method of observation.
- ▪ A disadvantage of using the participant observation method is the possibility of investigator effects and the impact of the researcher on the other participants’ behaviour. The mere presence of the investigator as a member within the group might influence the participants’ behaviour in a way which was not intended. Consequently, the participants may change their behaviour through demand characteristics and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims. Consequently, natural behaviour is not being observed, thus reducing the internal validity of the observation because the investigator is a participant.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVATIONS
+ EVALUATION
- In a non‐participant observation, the person who is conducting the observation does not participate in the activity being observed.
- This type of observation is quite common in educational settings, as in teacher evaluations
- for example, when an observer sits in the corner of the room and watches the lesson.
- The aim is for the observer to be as unobtrusive as possible and not engage with any of the activities happening.
Evaluating Non‐Participant Observations - An advantage of using a non‐participant observation method is that investigator effects are less likely compared to a participant observation. The researcher is often observing at a distance from the participant(s) and in some situations, not visible to them at all. As a result, the behaviour of the investigator is unlikely to have a negative impact on the behaviour of the participants. This means that behaviour observed is more likely to be representative of natural and unaltered human conduct.
▪ There are disadvantages associated with the non‐participant method of observation. Due to a lack of proximity to the participant behaviour being studied, the researcher might miss behaviours of interest. This means that unique insights which contribute to the understanding of the human behaviour being observed will be overlooked because of not being involved personally.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
NATURALISTIC OBSERVATIONS:
+ EVALUATION
- A naturalistic observation is an observation carried out in an unaltered setting in which the observer does not interfere in any way and merely observes the behaviour in question as it happens normally.
- An example of this would be an observation carried out in a shopping centre as people go about their daily business.
Evaluating Naturalistic Observations - A strength of using naturalistic observations is that a higher level of ecological validity can be achieved. In an observation of this design, the researcher records naturally occurring behaviour in the original environment in which it ordinarily occurs. This means that the behaviour being recorded is likely to be more representative of everyday activities and reflect spontaneous actions that sometimes occur incidentally.
- ▪ There are issues of ascertaining reliability with naturalistic observations. Since observations of this kind record behaviours which are occurring naturally as they unfold it is difficult, if not impossible, for the exact same conditions to be replicated. Consequently, the test‐retest method of checking reliability cannot be used with this type of observational design, as the researcher is not in control of variables. This means that research attempting to understand human behaviour using naturalistic observations often **lacks replicability. **
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
CONTROLLED OBSERVATIONS
+ EVALUATION
- A controlled observation is conducted under strict conditions, such as in an observation room or laboratory setting where extraneous variables (such as time of day, noise, temperature and visual distractions) can be controlled to avoid interference with the behaviour being observed.
- Sometimes one‐ way mirrors can be used for these types of observations.
- If the participants know they are being observed, this is an overt method which is most commonly the case for controlled observations.
Evaluating Controlled Observations
* A strength of controlled observations is that they can be replicated to check for reliability. By their very nature, the variables are highly controlled in this type of observational design. This means that standardised procedures, the manipulation of the independent variable and control over extraneous variables can be repeated by the same, or different, researchers to assess the reliability.
▪ A criticism of controlled observation is that they have a lower level of external validity. The researcher records behaviour in an artificial environment with variables subject to strict manipulation. This high level of control comes at a cost with the setting of the observation feeling quite unnatural as a result. Therefore, the participants’ behaviour may alter in response meaning that the observation no longer represents real‐life occurrences causing the ecological validity of the findings to be questionable.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
STRUCTURED METHODS
+ EVALUATION
- In structured observations, the researcher uses coded ‘schedules’ according to a previously agreed formula to document the behaviour and organise data into behavioural categories.
- A behavioural category is when psychologists must decide which specific behaviours should be examined.
- This involves breaking the target behaviour (e.g. aggression) into components that can be observed and measured (e.g. hitting or kicking).
Evaluating Structured Observations
▪ A strength of structured observations is that the researcher can compare behaviour between participants and across groups. The use of operationalised behavioural categories makes the coding of the data more systematic. When there is more than one observer, the standardised behaviour schedule results in greater inter‐observer reliability. It is important for research methodologies to be consistent so that accurate comparisons can be made.
▪ However, there may be problems with ascertaining high internal validity in a structured observation. This is because the researcher may miss some crucial behaviours during the observation which is pertinent to the aim of the investigation. As a result, the findings portrayed may not provide the full picture about the behaviour in question, as they could lack the finer details. This is a problem because what was intended to be measured was not achieved in its entirety.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
UNSTRUCTURED OBSERVATIONS
+ EVALUATION
- An unstructured observation involves every instance of the observed behaviour being recorded and described in as much detail as possible.
- This is useful if the behaviour that researchers are interested in does not occur very often and is more usual with naturalistic observation.
Evaluating Unstructured Observations
▪ A strength of unstructured observation is the richness of data obtained. Since behaviour is recorded in great detail, researchers are able to obtain a comprehensive view of human behaviour. This adds to the internal validity of the observational technique.
▪ Additionally, this type of observation is also prone to observer bias due to the lack of objective behaviour categories. This is a problem because the observer may then only record behaviour which is of subjective value to them, and not a valid representation of what is being displayed. As a result, there may be a problem with inter‐observer reliability as there will be a lack of consistency in the observations recorded.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
In observations, What are the two methods of sampling?
+ EVALUATION
TIME SAMPLING
* This is where the observer records behaviour at prescribed intervals
* ie every 10 seconds
strengths
* Time sampling methods allow for a better use of time since fewe observations are made
weakness
* not every behaviour that is relevant to the investigation will be counted in between the time frames allocated
EVENT SAMPLING
* this is where an observer records the number of times that the target behaviour occurs
* e.g a tally
strengths
* every behaviour of interest to the researcher wil be counted from the beginning through to the end of the observation
weakness
* there is the possibility that some behaviours could be missed if there is too much happening at the same time, resulting in some not being coded
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
WHAT IS A QUESTIONNAIRES?
- Questionnaires are a type of ‘self‐report’ technique, where participants provide information relating to their thoughts, feelings and behaviours.
- They can be designed in different ways, and can comprise of open questions, closed questions or a mixture of both.
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES:
OPEN QUESTIONS
+ EVALUATION
- Open questions allow participants to answer however they wish, and thus generate qualitative data since there is no fixed number of responses to select from.
- Responses to these types of questions provide rich and detailed data which can provide insight into the unique human condition.
Evaluation of Open Question Questionnaires
▪ A strength of using open questions is that there is less chance of researcher bias. This is especially true if the questionnaire is also anonymous, since the participant can answer the questions in their own words, without input from the researcher providing a set number of responses. Consequently, there is less chance of the responses being influenced by the researcher’s expectations.
▪ However, there are limitations of using questionnaires in psychological research. Participants may answer in a socially desirable way, where they try to portray themselves in the best possible light to the researcher. This means that the open response may lack validity as it is not their natural response.
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
CLOSED QUESTIONS
+ EVALUATION
Closed questions restrict the participant to a predetermined set of responses and generate quantitative data.
The types of closed questions:
* Checklist: This is a type of question where participants tick the answer(s) that apply to them.
- Likert response scale - This is a type of question where participants rate on a scale their views/opinions on a question. For example: Psychology is the most interesting A‐Level subject. (Circle the number that applies).
- ranking scale - This is where participants place a list of items in their preferred order.
- For example: Rank the following activities according to how much time you spend on them each day.
(1 = most time, 4 =least time).
□ Talking face‐to‐face
□ Talking on the telephone
□ Text messaging
□ Other (e.g. Snapchat or Instagram)
evaluation
▪ An advantage of using closed questions is the nature of the data collected which is quantitative. This type of data makes it easy to analyse the results statistically or in a graphical format. This is useful because direct comparisons can be made between groups of individuals. This means the researcher can look for patterns and trends in the data that can lead to further research being conducted.
▪ There are limitations to adopting a closed question format in questionnaire research. By sticking to a predetermined list of questions, the researcher is unable to pursue and explore responses that are of particular interest. Additionally, closed questions often produce a response bias. This can happen because the participant doesn’t take the time to read all the questions properly and, for example, selects ‘yes’ for each of their answers. This means that the data generated may lack internal validity.
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
What factors should be considered when designing questionnaires:
6 Points
Keep the terminology simple and clear.
Keep it as short as possible.
Be sensitive; avoid personal questions. If you must, collect personal information at the end.
Do not use leading questions.
Do not use questions that make assumptions or sweeping statements.
Pilot and modify the questionnaire.
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
INTERVIEWS
* WHAT ARE THEY
* 3 DIFF TYPES OF INTERVIEWS
- Interviews are another type of self‐report technique which predominantly take place on a face‐to‐face basis, although they can also happen over the telephone.
There are three different interview designs:
STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
* interviews can take the form of participants just answering a predetermined list of questions
UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
* they can be more like a relaxed conversation between friends
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
* many fall between the two
- Responses are usually recorded, with the use of an interview schedule that the interviewer completes and/or audio or video recording, with the informed consent of the interviewee(s).
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
+ EVALUATION
- Structured interviews have the questions decided on in advance and they are asked in exactly the same order for each interviewee taking part.
- The interviewer uses an interview schedule and will often record the answers to each question by taking notes/ticking boxes on their schedule.
Evaluation of Structured Interviews
▪ An advantage of using structured interviews in psychological research is that the quantitative (numerical) data is easier to statistically analyse. This is useful because direct comparisons can be made between groups of individuals meaning that the researcher can look for patterns and trends in the data. Additionally, because the questions are standardised and asked in the same sequence every time to all participants, the interview is easily replicable to test for reliability.
▪ There are disadvantages of using the structured interview method. It is possible that over the course of running several interviews following the same schedule with different participants, that investigator effects may play a role. This is where the interviewer may, unconsciously, bias any responses given to the questions they ask by their tone of voice, intonations, body language and so on. Likewise, investigator effects can also occur between researchers where there is more than one researcher conducting the interviews.
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS:
+ EVALUATION
- Unstructured interviews are conducted more like a conversation, with the interviewer only facilitating the discussion rather than asking set questions.
- Very little is decided in advance (only the topic and questions needed to identify the interviewee).
- Therefore, this type of interview typically produces a large amount of rich qualitative data.
- Answers will usually be audio or video recorded, as to write them all down as quickly as they were spoken would be impossible for the interviewer, and would also spoil the relaxed atmosphere of the unstructured interview.
**Evaluation of Unstructured Interviews **
- The use of unstructured interviews can increase the validity of findings by significantly reducing the possibility of investigator effects. The open question schedule in unstructured interviews means that the investigator does not control the direction of the conversation to meet their own preconceived agenda. Participants can justify their answers in their own words with opinions rather than trying to guess the aim of the study through any clues given. This is useful because it reduces the possibility of participants displaying demand characteristics in their interview responses.
- Unstructured interviews generate large quantities of rich and interesting qualitative data. This allows the interviewer to clarify the meaning and gain further information from the participant if required to full understand complex human behaviour. However, unstructured interviews are more time consuming and costly, as this type of interview requires a trained psychologist to administer them. A further issue with this method is that statistical analysis can be challenging, as the data collected is qualitative, making it more difficult to identify patterns and trends without undergoing a content analysis first.
SELF REPORT TECHNIQUES
SEMI - STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
+ EVALUATION
- Semi‐structured interviews comprise of mostly prepared questions that can be supplemented with additional questions as seen fit by the interviewer at the time.
- As with unstructured interviews, the interviewer can deviate from the original questions and consequently this type of interview also typically produces rich qualitative data.
**Evaluation of Semi‐Structured Interviews **
▪ The use of semi‐structured interview can increase the validity of findings. The open questions in semi‐ structured interviews may encourage the participant to be honest in their answers, thus reducing social desirability bias as participants are able to justify their answers in their own words with opinions. However, the interviewer still retains control over the semi‐structured interview schedule compared to an unstructured interview, which can result in investigator effects which can affect the behaviour of the participants negatively.
▪ Semi‐structured interviews generate rich and interesting qualitative data. As with unstructured interviews, this allows the interviewer to clarify the meaning of the participants’ responses and gain further information if required. This provides a unique insight into explaining human behaviour. However, as a result, analysis of such data can be more difficult, time consuming and expensive to conduct compared to quantitative data which is easier to statistically analyse without undergoing further processing beforehand.
CORRELATIONS
What is a correlational Technique?
- Correlational techniques are non‐experimental methods used to measure how strong the relationship is between two (or more) variables.
- In an experiment, the effect of an independent variable upon the dependent variable is measured; however, in correlational studies the movement and direction of co‐variables in response to each other is measured.
- There is no claim of a cause and effect relationship,
although after a correlational study has been conducted, further research will often be conducted to determine if one variable is in fact affecting the other. - A real‐world example of this is seen with cigarette‐smoking and lung cancer: first it was noticed that there was a positive correlation between the number of cigarettes smoked and the likelihood of developing lung cancer. Later, this research was extended and a cause and effect relationship was discovered between cigarette‐smoking and lung cancer.