Learning Practical Investigation

Question 1

Abstract (main points)

Answer 1

> prior research suggests females show more helping behaviour in society than males
we tested this
hypothesis: there would be a significant difference between Ms and Fs who threw away food waste
participants: 40 members of general public at Merry Hill
chi-squared stats tests
accepted null hypothesis

Question 2

Introduction (main points)

Answer 2

> social learning theory
> role models
> operant conditioning
> previous research showed females donated more money to charity than males
> we will conduct an observation...
> influential factors, so...
> two-tailed hypothesis

Question 3

Aim

Answer 3

To investigate whether there is a difference between genders and the helping behaviour they display, such as throwing their own rubbish away after eating, by observing the general public in an eatery.

Question 4

Alternative hypothesis

Answer 4

There will be a significant difference in the number of males compared to females that throw their rubbish away after eating in a public eatery.

Question 5

Null hypothesis

Answer 5

there will be no significant difference in the number of males compared to females that throw their rubbish away after eating in a public eatery. Any difference that is observed will be due to chance.

Question 6

Participants

Answer 6

the general public in Merry Hill Shopping Centre, West Midlands

Question 7

Sampling method

Answer 7

opportunity sampling

Question 8

Apparatus

Answer 8

pen, paper, pre-drawn table (for results)

Question 9

Procedure (3)

Answer 9

1. We pre-drew a table to record results in with columns labelled “male” and “female” and rows labelled “threw rubbish away” and “did not throw rubbish away”.
2. We situated ourselves centrally in the food court and bought food to carry out a participant observation.
3. We observed behaviour in our surroundings and noted when we saw someone leave with or without disposing of their food waste. We recorded the data in our results table, numbering the participant in the order in which we observed him/her. We then recorded qualitative data, including age, whether they were alone or not and if there was a cleaner nearby.

Question 10

Controls

Answer 10

Situational variables could not be controlled due to natural/public environment so noise levels could not have been controlled.

Question 11

Thematic analysis

Answer 11

MORE LIKELY TO THROW WAY RUBBISH:
> small families
> friends
> couples
> couples with children

LESS LIKELY TO THROW AWAY RUBBISH:
> the elderly
> disabled people
> larger groups

Question 12

Conclusion (main points)

Answer 12

> no significant difference
we accept null hypothesis
any difference is due to chance

Question 13

Reference to prior research

Answer 13

we opposed prior research

Question 14

Evaluation: generalisability

Answer 14

low

sampling method=opportunity sampling

participants were those available at the time so biased sample

Question 15

Evaluation: reliability

Answer 15

high

standardised procedure

reproducible/replicable

Question 16

Evaluation: validity (4)

Answer 16

high ecological validity
>research method=natural
>natural behaviour, reflecting everyday

high
>natural–> participants were unaware
>no demand characteristics

high
>both types of data (qual and quan)
>both rich, in-depth data and objective data

low
>estimated qualitative data (e.g. age)
>subjectivity, low accuracy

Question 17

Evaluation: ethics (2)

Answer 17

high
>we did not record personal data
>no exploitation of personal information

low
>Ps weren’t aware of their participation
>no right to withdraw, no informed consent

Question 18

Evaluation: credibility

Answer 18

low
>natural conditions
>no control over extraneous variables

Question 19

Improvements for future research (2)

Answer 19

> generalisability: conduct experiment over several days, at different locations –> wider sample

> ethics: debrief, offer right to withdraw