Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology Paper 2 > Research methods > Flashcards

Research methods Flashcards

1
Q

Define aim

A

A general statement of what the researcher intends to investigate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define hypothesis

A

Statement of what researcher believes to be true, must be operationalised - defined + measurable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define extraneous variable

A

Nuisance variables that don’t vary systematically w/ IV. Any variable, other than IV that may have an effect on DV if not controlled

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Define confounding variable

A

Change systematically w/ IV so can’t be sure if change to DV is due to CV or IV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define single blind

A

PP don’t know aims so demand characteristics are reduced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Define double blind

A

PP + researcher don’t know aims so demand characteristics + investigator effect are reduced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Define independent groups

A

PP randomly allocated to diff groups where each group represents 1 experimental condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Evaluate independent groups

A

(+) No order effects bc tested once

(+) Less likely to guess aim therefore behaviour more natural

(-) Pps are diff, act as CV - reduces validity

(-) Pp variable, more time + money wasted - need twice as much pp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Repeated measures

A

Same pp take part in all conditions of experiment. Order is counter balanced to avoid order effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Evaluate repeated measures

A

(+) Pp variable is controlled as same person is used

(+) Fewer participants needed bc take part in all conditions - more economical

(-) Order effects acts as CV - reduces validity

(-) Pp may guess aim, change behaviour - reducing validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Matched pairs

A

2 Groups of pp used but related by being paired on pp variable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Evaluate matched pair

A

(+) Reduces pp variable, controls CV - inc validity

(+) No order effect bc tested once

(-) Matching is not perf, time consuming + can’t be matched exactly

(-) More time + money spent bc need more pp

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Describe a lab experiment

A
  • Controlled env
  • EV + CV are controlled
  • IV is manipulated + effect on DV is recorded
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Evaluate lab experiment

A

(+) EV + CV controlled so effects on DV is minimised

(+) Easily replicated due to standardised procedure

(-) Lack generalisability, controlled lab env is artificial

(-) Pp know they’re being studied so gives rise to demand characteristics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Describe a field experiment

A
  • Natural setting
  • IV manipulated + effect on DV is recorded
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Evaluate field experiment

A

(+) More generalisability bc env is more realistic than lab

(+) High ext val bc pp don’t know they’re being studied

(-) More difficult to control CV so harder to establish cause + effect due to effects on DV

(-) Ethical issues if pps don’t give informed consent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Describe a natural experiment

A

Change in IV isn’t brought about by researcher but would’ve happened even if researcher hadn’t been there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evaluate natural experiment

A

(+) Provide opportunities for research that may be impractical or unethical

(+) High ext val bc study real life issues

(-) Naturally occurring events happen rarely, reducing opportunities for research - limits generalisability

(-) Pp not randomly allocated to conditions, less sure whether IV affects DV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Describe a quasi experiment

A
  • IV based on pre-existing diff btw people
  • Variable not manipulated, already exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Evaluate quasi experiment

A

(+) Carried out in controlled conditions so high internal validity

(+) Replication possible due to high control

(-) Pp not randomly allocated to conditions, less sure whether IV affects DV

(-) Causal relationship not demonstrated bc researcher doesn’t manipulate IV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Opportunity sample

A

Ask people most available + w/in area

(+) Quick - most convenient

(-) Bias - unrepresentative of target population as it draws from specific area

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Volunteer sample

A

Advertise, pp select themselves

(+) Requires minimal input by researcher - saves time

(-) Bias sample - pp share similar traits, keen + curious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Random sample

A

Given no. then picked out

(+) unbiased - researcher has no influence over who is selected

(-) Time consuming

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Systematic sample

A

Every nth person is selected from target popullation

(+) Unbiased - researcher has no influence over who is selected

(-) Takes time + effort to get complete list of population

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Stratified sample
**Subgroups** are **identified**, **relative percentages** of subgroup in population are **refelected** in sample ## Footnote (+) **Highly representative** of **target population**, generalisability is more likely (-) **Selected pp** may still **refuse** so **more like volunteer sample**
26
What are the alternative forms of consent?
* **Presumptive** - ask **similar group** * **Prior general** - **agree** to be **deceived** * **Retrospective** - get consent **after study**
27
What are the diff btw correlations + experiments?
* **Experiments**, **researchers manipulate IV** + record **effects** on **DV**, **correlation**, **no manipulation** of variables so **cause + effect can't** be **demonstrated** * **Correlation**, **influence** of **EV isn't controlled**, maybe **3rd variable**
28
Evaluate correlation
(+) **Useful starting point** for **research** - measures how 2 variables are related + **suggests hypotheses** in **future research** (+) **Economical** - **no** need for **controlled env**, **less time consuming** (-) **No cause + effect** - maybe 3rd variable
29
When are observations usually used?
**W/in experiments** as a way of **assessing DV**
30
Evaluate observations
(+) **Captures unexpected behaviour** - **insight** into **unplanned behaviour** (-) **Risk** of **researcher bias** - **situation affected** by **expectations**
31
Naturalistic observation
Takes place where **target population usually occurs** ## Footnote (+) **High ext val** (-) **Low control**
32
Controlled observation
Some **control/manipulation** of **variables** ## Footnote (+) Can be **replicated** - **standardised** procedures (-) **Low ext val**
33
Covert observation
Pp **unaware** they're beig studied ## Footnote (+) **Demand characteristics** are reduced - **inc validity** (-) **Unethical**
34
Overt observations
Pp **aware** they're being studied ## Footnote (+) **Ethical** - pp given **consent** (-) **Demand characteristics** - **reduces validity**
35
Participant observation
**Researcher becomes part** of **group** ## Footnote (+) Leads to **greater insight** - **inc validty** (-) **Loss** of **objectivity** - researcher **identifies too strongly** w/ pp, **threatens validity**
36
Non-participant observation
Researcher remains **seperate** from group ## Footnote (+) **More objective** - less bias, **inc validity** (-) **Loss** of **insight** - **reduces validity**
37
Behavioural categories - behavioural design
**Target behaviour** to be observed should be **broken up** into set of **observable categories** ## Footnote (-) **Difficult** to make **clear** + **unambiguous** - **shouldn't overlap** (-) **Dustbin categories** - **all behaviours should be in list** + not 1 dustbin
38
Time sampling - observational design
Observation made at **regular intervals** ## Footnote (+) **Reduces** **no. observations** - more **structured** + **systematic** (-) May be **unrepresentative** - may miss **important details outside time scale**
39
Event sampling - observational design
Target behaviour is **recorded everytime it occurs** ## Footnote (+) **Records infrequent behaviour** (-) **Complex behaviour** is **oversimplified** + **unrecorded** - **dec validity**
40
Questionnaires
**Pre-set list** of **written questions** to which pp respond (+) **Cost effective** - can gather large amounts of data quickly bc distributed to large no. of people (+) Pp **more truthful compared** to **interview** bc **less self-conscious** (-) May **not** always be **truthful** + respond to present themselves in **+ve light** - **social desirability bias** (-) Often produce **response bias** - respondents reply in a similar way eg. always ticking yes.
41
What are the qualities of a good questionnaire?
* Avoid jargons * Avoid double barelled Q * Avoid leading Q
42
Closed questions
Respondent has **limited choices** ## Footnote (+) **Easier** to **analyse** - **produces graphs**, **easy** to **draw conclusions** from (-) **Respondents** are **restricted** - **reduces validity**
43
Open questions
Respondents provide **own ans expressed in words** ## Footnote (+) **Respondents not restricted** - **inc val** (-) **Difficult** to **analyse**
44
Structured interview
L**i**st of **pre-determined Q** asked in **fixed order** ## Footnote (+) **Easy** to **replicate** due to **standardised format** (-) **Interviewees can't elaborate**
45
Unstructured interview
**No set Q** ## Footnote (+) **More insight** - able to **elaborate** (-) **Difficult** to **replicate** bc **lacks structure** + **not standardised**
46
Outline what a pilot study is and the aims of a pilot study
* **Small scale trial run** of research design **before doing the real thing** * Find out certain things **don't work** to **correct them** before spending **time** + **money** on real thing
47
Quantitative data
**Numerical data** ## Footnote (+) **Easier** to **analyse** - can **draw graphs** + **calculate averages** (-) **Oversimplifies behaviour** - eg. using **rating scales** to **express feelings**, **individual** meaning are **lost**
48
Qualitative data
**Non-numerical data** ## Footnote (+) **Greater external validity** than quantitative data - provides researcher w/ more **meaningful insight** (-) **Harder** to **analyse** - **large amount** of **detailed info** is **harder** to **summarise**
49
Primary data
**First hand data collected** for **purpose** of **investigation** ## Footnote (+) **Fits job** - study designed to **extract only data needed**, **info directly relevant** to **aim** (-) **Requires time + effort** - 2º can be accessed w/in minutes
50
Secondary data
**Collected** by **someone other than person conducting research** ## Footnote (+) **Inexpensive** - requires **minimal effort** (-) **Qual** may be **poor** - research my be **outdated/incomplete**, **challenges validity** of **conclusion**
51
Meta-analysis
Type of **2º data** that **combines data** from **large no. studies.** Calculation of **effect size** ## Footnote (+) **Inc val of conclusions** - eventual **sample size** is much **larger** than **individual sample**, **inc generalisability** (-) **Publication bias** - **may not select relevant studies**, leaving out **-ve/non-sig results**
52
What are the measures of central tendency?
* **Mean** * **Mode** * **Median**
53
Mean
**Arithmetic average** ## Footnote (+) **Sensitive** - **includes all scores** w/in calculation (-) May be **unrepresentative** - **large/small no. distorts no.**
54
Median
**Middle value** ## Footnote (+) **Unaffected** by **extreme scores** - **representative** of **data set** as **whole** (-) **Less sensitive** than **mean** - **not all scores included**
55
Mode
**Most frequent no.** ## Footnote (+) **Relevant** to **categorical data** (-) **Overly simple** measure - may be **many modes** in data
56
What are the measures of dispersion?
* **Range** * **SD**
57
Range
**Diff. btw highest** + **lowest +1** ## Footnote (+) **Easy** to **calculate** (-) **Doesn't account** for **distribution** of **scores**
58
Standard deviation
**Measure** of **average spread around** the **mean** ## Footnote (+) **More precise** than range - **includes all values w/in calculation** (-) May be **misleading** - **extreme values aren't revealed**
59
What is peer review + what are the aims of it?
* Before publication, **all aspects** of investigation are **scrutinised** by **experts** in the field, should be **objective** + **unknown** to researcher * **Funding**: allocate research funding * **Validation** of **qual** + **relevance** of research * **Improvements** + **amendments** **suggested**
60
Evaluate peer reviews
(+) **Protects qual of published research** - **minimises fraud** + means research is **highest qual** (-) **Publication Bias** - research **not** seen as **+ve** or **headline grabbing** may be **ignored**, creates **false impression** of **current state of psy**
61
Outline a case study
* **Detailed** + **in-depth analysis** of individual/group * Tend to be **longitudinal** * **Qualitative data**
62
Evaluate case studies
(+) **Rich detailed insight** - **inc validity** (+) Enable study of **unusual behaviour** - eg. HM, help **understanding** of **normal functioning** (-) **Research bias** - **conclusion** based on **subjective interpretation** of researcher, **reduce validity** (-) **Pp accounts** are **biased** - prone to **inaccuracy**, low val
63
Outline content analysis
* **Observational** research * People studied **indirectly** via **communications** eg. **media** * **Coding** (counting no. times word is mentioned) may produce **quantitative data** * **Thematic analysis** produces **qualitative data**
64
Evaluate content analysis
(+) **Fewer ethical issues** - data is **2º** that already **exists** - **no issues obtaining permission** (+) **Flexible** - produces **qualitative** + **quantitative data** (-) **Communication studied out of context** - **researcher** may **attribute motivations** to **speaker**, **reduces validity** (-) **Lacks objectivity**
65
How do you assess reliability?
1. **Test-retest** - **test same person twice** on 2/more diff. occasions, results should be same 2. **Inter-observer** * Correlation coefficient: **+0.8**
66
Outline ways to improve reliability
* **Questionnaire** - **replace open Q** * **Interview** - **same interviewer** * **Experiments** - **standardised procedure** * **Observations** - **operationalise** behavioural **categories**
67
Give 2 types of validity
* **Ecological** validity - **findings generalise** to **everyday setting** * **Temporal** validity - **findings** should be **consistent** **over time**
68
How do you assess validity?
* **Face** validity - whether test **looks like** it measures what it should * **Concurrent validity** - whether findings are **similar** to those on **well established test**
69
Outline ways to improve validity
* **Experiment** - **control** group + **standardised procedure** * **Questionnaire** - **lie scale** (test for social desirability bias) + told that data is **confidential** * **Observations** - **operationalised categories** * **Qualitative research** - use no. **diff sources**
70
Outline type 1 error
* **Null rejected** * **Optimistic error** * **Sig diff found** even when it **doesn't exist** * **Too linient**
71
Outline type 2 error
* **Null accepted** * **pessimistic error** * **Too stringent**

Psychology Paper 2 (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions