Knowledge Flashcards
Advantage of mean
+most sensitive MoCT
Disadvantage of mean
-can’t be used with nominal dat
-less representative
Advantage of median
+not affected by extreme scores
Disadvantage of median
-exact values are not reflected
Advantage of mode
+only one that can be used for nominal data
Disadvantage of mode
-not a useful way of describing data
Advantage of independent groups
+no order effects as different P’s are in each condition
+less chance of demand characteristics
Disadvantage of independent groups
-more P’s needed as it’s a larger sample
-individual differences so results aren’t as accurate
Advantage of matched pairs
+less chance of individual differences as P’s are matched
+no order effects as P’s in different conditions
Disadvantage of matched pairs
-impossible to match all participant variables
-lengthy process to match P’s
Advantage of repeated measures
+less participants needed
+removes individual differences
Disadvantage of repeated measures
-more materials needed
-order effects
Advantage of case studies
+in depth/ detailed information
+information about rare/unique situations
+high ecological validity
Disadvantage of case studies
-difficult to replicate
-lack of generalisability
-can’t establish cause and effect
Strengths of correlation
+can be used when it would be unethical to manipulate variables
+easily repeated
Weaknesses of correlations
-lack in/external validity lack generalisability
-no cause and effect relationship
Examples of closed questions
•likert scale=indicates agreement with statement (5 is strongly agree)
•fixed choice option=list of options for respondents to choose from
Strengths of lab experiments
+extraneous variables controlled
+high reliability as it’s replicable
Weakness of lab experiment
-low ecological validity as it’s artificial conditions
-demand characteristics (screw you effect)
Strength of field experiment
+high mundane realism leading to high ecological validity
+cause and effect relationship can be discovered
Weakness of field experiment
-hard to control extraneous variables as not complete control over environment
-risk of demand characteristics
Strength of quasi experiments
+ allow research of phenomena that wouldn’t be ethical otherwise
Weakness of quasi experiment
-IV has not been directly manipulated we can’t draw definite cause and effect
Naturalistic vs control observation
Naturalistic has high ecological validity and can be generalised
Controlled is easier to replicate due to control variables
Covert vs overt observation
Covert can show participants natural behaviour
Overt is ethical as you gain informed consent
Participant vs non-participant observations
participant can get in-depth data as they are close to P’s
Non-participant are more objective as not apart of it
Structured vs unstructured observations
Structured can make recording data easier and replicable
Unstructured can be very detailed
Strength of cross-sectional study
+quick to conduct
+data collected at once so easier
Weakness of cross-sectional studies
-can’t analyse behaviour overtime
-less rich detailed data collected
Strength of longitudinal studies
+best way of spotting trends as they are repeated
+participant variables don’t effect data collected
Weakness of longitudinal studies
-some participants may no longer want to participate years later
Milgram evaluation experimental validity
-limitation
-assumes P’s believed they were actually giving shocks
-unlikely for the amount of damage that would be caused causing doubt
-however Milgram said in debrief 75% of P’s actually believed that
Milgram evaluation (sample)
-limitation
-self selected sample as they responded to newspaper article so display similar characteristics
-all male subjective list little variety
-lacks population validity
-some variation different education levels
Milgram evaluation (ethics)
-deception- they were unaware that it wasn’t real so also didn’t gain informed consent
-harm- believing they caused others harm can cause them harm 3 P’s had full blown seizures
Peer review process
Scientists will review something and the write a report about this research. They will then send it to an editor who will decide whether it’s relevant to their article if not it will be sent back if it is then it will be sent for peer review they are specialists in that area and scrutinize the scientific basis and ethical side. This then if is seen as good with then be published
