10 MARKS Flashcards
2 strengths of Andrade including qwuantative data
S= quantative data was collected e.g doodling was operationalized as shading shapes + number of shapes could be tallied =how much each ppt doodled + objective.
- The number of names + locations turned —> numerical monitoring performance score (correctable answers - false alarms) = objectively analysed
- data was objective = increases validity cause no observation/opinion needed = no experimenter bias
S= lab exp —> highly standerdized like all ppt listen to same monotonous voice recording for 2.5 mins + giving all ppt in doodling group same paper w printed shape = can be replicated exactly + tested for reliability
+ 2 weaknesses of Andrade
- lacks mundane realism by operationalisng doodling as shading shapes = prevents ppt from doodling naturally —> results ma nit be generalizable to when ppl doodle normally (shapes)
- study done in lab = lacks eco validity as ppl may be used to doodling at home/work —> low validity as task not representative of real life doodling
- lacks generalizability as limited sample = ppt from same applied psychology unit at Plymouth Uni + recruited from another study
- sample was gynocentric = 5 men/40 ppt
As sample from same places = not representative to general population as small sample = low validity - gynocentric = not generalizable as 5 men may not be representative of all population,
Baron cohen two strengths including self reports
S= highly standerdized as ppt took eyes test w set of 36 Q’s + additional practice Q
- Q’s all same size, static, b+w of eyes with 4 options to choose a mental state from 3 similar semantic options
- ppt sat in quiet room + provided w glossary of terms incase of confusion w definitions of words = strict procedure -> easily replicable and test reliability
- study was self reports = cheap/easy to produce = not very time consuming and in case of BC the info was quantitative —> quick + easy analysis w minimal interpretation/objective
- singer ppt info remained confidential= social desirability factor decreased
BC two weaknesses s
-Validity is difficult to ensure that eyes test was measuring TOM = TOM compromises of 2 components; determine mental state + inferring contents of mental state
- study not very eco valid as images were static/ b+ w and not case in real life as eyes move and we judge based off tone/posture when judging mental states.
- ethics with admin sting test as g1 (15 adult males w AS/HFA) struggled w eyes test = designed inteionally to challenge them —> caused distress/psychological harm as feel embarrassed
2 strengths of Laney including quantive data
- Quanative data ppt had to do 5 questionnares’FHI which had 24 diff food items (critical item ‘you loved asparagus the first time you tried it” in 16th position)
- ppt had to rate on scale 1-8 how likely event is to have occured before aged 10 = ppt did FHI both pre and post manipulation
- as data is quantataive = analysis can be done to show comparison between pre and post manipulations = implantation of false memory + objective so no interpretation
- lab experiment so high levels of control + used standerdized procedure = all ppt did same 5 questionnares (FHI,RQ,FPQ,FCQ,MBQ) + saw same 20 slideshows that lasted 30s per slide
- PPt given food profile made to look tailored to them all had same 3 items including “you disliked spinach” apart from love group also got “you loved to eat asparagus” in 3rd
- everything same apart from implantation of false memory = difference in results between love + control group = high validity
DESIGN OBSERVATION STUDY
MAJOR:
- Identification of behavioral categories
- Operationalisation of each behavioral category
- If observation is: NATURAL/CONTROLLED, STRUCTURED/UNSTRUCTURED, COVERT/OVERT,PPT/NON PPT
- Sampling technique/size
- how tallying done + data analysed (operationalised) e.g averages/bar charts
- ETHICS
MINOR:
- location of ppt when data collected (office/school)
- ppt/who
DESIGN FIELD EXP
MAJOR:
- DV, what is recorded + operationalised (how to measure)
- IV, how + operationalised (how to manipulate)
- Location e.g school
MINOR:
- Controls
- Sample + ppt (technique/size)
- experimental design
- description of data analysed e.g central tendency/bar charts
-ETHICS
CORRELATIONAL STUDY DESIGN
Major:
- Identifcation of variable 1&2
- How to measure variable e.g questions,test,observations
- Sampling techniuque/size
- closed questions scored/data analysed e.g scattergram
- ETHICS
MINOR:
- Location of ppt when data collected (clinics)
- ppt must fit DV/IV
DESIGN STRUCTURED INTERVIEW
MAJOR:
- Content of questions asked (open/closed)
- Interview SS detail (Structured/unstructured/semi SS)
- Style of Q’s (Open/closed)
- Location of ppt interviewed
- Sample technique,size, type of ppt
MINOR:
- lie questions
- how closed Q’s scored (operationalised)
- how quantative data from closed Q’s analysed (operationalised)
- how open Q’s interpreted (opertaionalised)
- ETHICS
DESIGN QUESTIONNARE
- Control of Q’s asked (info age/beliefs)
- How: open/closed
- lie questions/filler questions
- sampling technique + size
- opertionlisation of how closed Q’s scored
- operatiolised of how quant. Data from closed Q’s analysed
- how open Q’s interpreted
- ETHICS
MINOR:
- location of ppt when completing questionnare + how distributed
- range of age + style of Q’s
