7. Research methods EQs Flashcards
Outline what is involved in self-report. (2 marks)
where the participant gives information to the researcher/provides details of own
feelings/thoughts/behaviour. (1)
involves responding to questions on a questionnaire/during interview (1)
Example of a extraneous variable that works for most questions? (1 mark)
same person giving same instructions
Investigator effects sometimes occur in interviews.
Explain two modifications that would help to minimise investigator effects in this
study. (4 marks)
- have an interviewer who did not know the aims of the study so that they would not let their own expectations influence how they ask the interview questions (double blind technique)
- use a structured interview so that the investigator cannot alter the questions
Briefly explain two reasons why conducting a peer review might improve psychological
research. (4 marks)
would guarantee high quality of the written investigation (1) through the suggestion of possible improvements (1)
would ensure that the research is appropriate for publication (1) e.g. check work is original (not copied/plagerised) (1)
Explain why a repeated measures design was more appropriate than an independent
groups design in this study. (2 marks)
- a repeated measures design would control for individual differences, eg level of stress, relaxation methods, fitness levels, personality, attitude to sport, etc
- so, the psychologist can be more certain that any difference in stress level between the two conditions is due to running the 2 km run at breaktime rather than due to other participant variables.
Explain why a histogram would not be an appropriate way of displaying the means (2 marks)
- you need to have continuous data
- data is categorical
What is meant by a Type II error? Explain why psychologists normally use the 5% level of significance in their research. (3 marks)
- A Type II error would occur where a real difference in the data is overlooked as it is wrongly accepted as being not significant,
- accepting the null hypothesis in error (a false negative).
- The 5% level is used as it strikes a balance between the risk of making the Type I and II errors
Describe the process and purposes of peer review. (6 marks)
Process
* other psychologists check the research report before deciding whether it could be published
* independent scrutiny by other psychologists working in a similar field
* work is considered in terms of its validity, significance and originality
* assessment of the appropriateness of the methods and designs used
* reviewer can accept the manuscript as it is, accept with revisions, suggest the author
makes revisions and re-submits or reject without the possibility of re-submission
* editor makes the final decision whether to accept or reject the research report based on the
reviewers’ comments/recommendations
* research proposals are submitted to panel and assessed for merit.
Purposes
* to ensure quality and relevance of research, eg methodology, data analysis etc
* to ensure accuracy of findings
What is meant by a pilot study? Explain one possible reason why the psychologist decided
to conduct a pilot study (3 marks)
- Pilot studies are small-scale investigations conducted before research.
- To identify whether there needed to be any modifications in the design
- To identify whether it would be feasible to conduct a study
What are investigator effects? Suggest one way in which they could have been minimised in interviews (3 marks)
- Any (unintentional) influence of the researcher’s behaviour/characteristics on participants/data/outcome.
- provide a standardised script for the interviewers to use
- the interviewers could have been trained to greet the students in the same way and ask questions with a neutral tone
Ethical issues to be referenced in a consent form (6 marks)
no pressure to consent
they can withdraw at any time
they can withdraw their data from the experiment
their data will be kept confidential and anonymous
they should feel free to ask the researcher any questions at any time
they will receive a full debrief at the end of the programme.
Why would you use a non-directional hypothesis? (2 marks)
- no previous evidence available for the researcher
- to predict the direction of the results.
Explain what it means for a test to have high concurrent validity. (2 marks)
- where there is close agreement between the data produced by the new test
compared to the established test. - close agreement is indicated if the correlation between the two sets of data produced by the two tests exceeds +0.8.
When would a scattergraph be appropriate? (2 marks)
- the study is correlational
- scattergrams display relationships between co-variables
Explain why it would not be appropriate for the researchers to conclude a statement (3 marks)
- correlation only shows a relationship between the two co-variables
- researcher’s conclusion implies causation
performance
* third variable (example)
What is meta-analysis? (2 marks)
- meta-analysis is the process where researchers collect and collate a wide range of previously conducted research on a specific area
- collated research is reviewed together
- combined data is often statistically tested to provide an overall conclusion.
Explain one way in which the researcher might deal with the deception (2 marks)
- at the end of the study students should be given a full debrief
- once students had been debriefed, they should be given the right to withdraw their data if they would like to.
Explain one reason why the researcher decided to include these additional questions
on the questionnaire that weren’t used in results (2 marks)
- additional questions distract the students from realising the focus of the study
- students would be less likely to alter their ratings, reducing demand characteristics (improving validity).
Explain why the researcher decided to use the 5% level of significance rather than the
1% level in this study. (2 marks)
- the 5% level of significance is the conventional level of probability employed by
psychologists/balances the risks of making a Type I and Type II error - the researcher is not investigating a sensitive topic nor one which may affect individual’s health (as in clinical
trials).
What must behavioural categories be? (4 marks)
- objective
- visible
- not ambiguous
- not overlapping
Describe features of the abstract section in a scientific report. (3 marks)
- first section of a report
- brief summary
- contains (a summary of) the aims, methods, results, and conclusions
Suggest one way the psychologist could reduce the chance of a type II error. (1 mark)
use the 5% level
The student who carried out the study selected the two descriptions. He decided himself which social backgrounds were similar and which social backgrounds were different.
Explain how the study could be improved by selecting the descriptions another way. (2 marks)
- have an independent
person/researcher who does not know the purpose of the study select the descriptions - this would remove any
chance of researcher bias or investigator bias/would increase validity.
Researchers wished to study the link between attachment and parasocial relationships. They surveyed a stratified sample of 100 18-year-old students from four different schools. Some schools had a large number of students and others had a smaller number of students. The students were asked questions about their childhood, their feelings towards celebrities and about
their friendships at school.
Explain how the researchers could have obtained a stratified sample from the four different
schools. (4 marks)
- identify strata / sub-groups in their population, e.g. the four different schools
- calculate the required proportion from each stratum based on the proportion in the
population - select sample at random from each school / stratum / sub-group
- use a random selection method, e.g. assign each student a number then use a
computer, calculator or random number table to select specified number of numbers
between 0 and X (or hat method).
At the end of the survey, researchers wished to treat the students ethically. They used the following statement in their debriefing:
‘Thank you for taking part in the survey. Your data will be very useful. Have you any
questions?’
Suggest two additional points that could be added to the debriefing statement to better
ensure ethical treatment of the students. (4 marks)
- confidentiality: advise students that their data is to be kept confidential so their individual responses will not be identifiable and will not be accessible to anyone other than the researchers
- withdrawal of data: ensure students are told they have the right to withdraw their data
after the event even if they consented to the survey and were aware of the aim at the
start - protection from harm: ensure that no one has been upset or offended by questions on the survey, e.g. if they were felt to be intrusive or offensive, or upset by feelings aroused during the survey. If so, then discuss that these feelings are normal etc
- debrief: explain the full purpose / aim of the survey, check again that they are willing
to allow their data to be used.
To assess the questionnaire’s validity, the researcher gave it to 30 participants and
recorded the results. He then gave the same 30 participants an established questionnaire
measuring locus of control. The researcher found a weak positive correlation between the two sets of results, suggesting that his questionnaire had low validity.
Explain how the validity of the researcher’s questionnaire could be improved. (4 marks)
- the researcher could compare the two questionnaires and note any differences
- the researcher could (identify and) remove/deselect any items on his questionnaire that are
problematic - items might be problematic because they are leading, ambiguous, too complex, double-barrelled etc
- the researcher could incorporate a lie scale, so respondents are less aware that locus of control is
being tested.
Explain how Asch’s conformity research illustrates applicability. (3 marks)
- Asch’s studies had standardised procedures (eg the number of confederates; length of lines etc)
- which meant that they could be repeated/replicated to assess consistency/reliability of the
findings; - this increased the validity of the conclusions drawn
