personal investigation - correlational study Flashcards
aim?
to see if being addicted to smartphones has a negative impact on cognitive deficits and therefore a reduction in a persons performance on troop test
research hypothesis ?
there will be a positive relationship between a PT smartphone addiction score and the time it takes them to complete the conflicting troop test
null hypothesis ?
there will be no relationship between PT smartphone addiction score and the time it takes them to complete the conflicting troop test
what type of hypothesis and why ?
directional because previous research suggests that smartphone addiction has a negative effect on cognitive processing therefore we would expect people who have a higher score would take longer to complete
co - variables ?
- scores on the smartphone addiction
- cognitive processing
how did we measure smartphone addiction ?
by using a questionnaire that consisted of 10 statements on smartphone use. it was a multiple choice answer of strongly disagree, disagree, weakly agree, agree and strongly agree which was scored 1-6. the the max score was 60 (highly addicted) lowest was 10 (not addicted)
how we measured cognitive processing ?
the time it took to complete the troop test, there were 25 words of conflicting colour ink, the PT names the colour of the ink
strengths of correlational analysis in this study ?
- more ethical and practical way of studying whether smartphone addictions affect cognitive processing than using an experiment as it wouldn’t be ethical or practical.
- we can also rule out a casual relationship, if we find theres no relationship between SMA and ST we can say SMA does not affect cognitive processing
weakness of correlational analysis for this study ?
- cannot assume that being addicted to a smartphone can cause someone to have poorer cognitive processing therefore cannot assume cause and effect. it could be a third variable present causing poor cognitive processing. this is a weakness as people tend to misinterpret cause and effect with correlational analysis.
the 4 extraneous variables ?
- investigator bias
- demand characteristics
- social desirability bias
- situational bais
investigator bias ?
could influence our results as this knowledge may influence our recording particularly the stroop test which reduced internal validity
demand characteristics ?
if PT knew the aim of the research was to see if smartphone addiction reduced cognitive processing then they may change their answers on the SMA or performance on the stoop test to fit our aims
social desirability bias ?
PT may not be completely honest about their answers to the SMA questionnaire
situational variables ?
such as noise and crowding would affect results, if PT completed the questionnaire in noisy areas with friends present then they may not concentrate and compete the questionnaire properly
dealing with investigator bias ?
standardised instructions and procedures were used and PT completed the questionnaire in a classroom situation in silence without interaction with researchers
dealing with demand characteristics ?
we did not teak the PT the full aim of our study just that they were completing a troop test and then a questionnaire on smartphone use
dealing with social desirability bias ?
with this PT were not asked for their names and total anonymity was assured. we wrote stroop test time and the questionnaire so that we could link each PT a with their SMA with their troop time
dealing with situational variables ?
PT completed the questionnaire and troop test in an empty room with just 2 researchers present
what was the location of the research ?
laboratory setting as we took our PT to a quiet room where only the researchers and PT were present in order to complete the SMA questionnaire and the stroop test.
strengths of lab setting?
higher internal validity because we were more bale to control extraneous variables such as investigator bias and situational variables. means we were able to record time in which the troop yes was completed more accurately than in a filed or online
weakness of lab setting ?
study has lower ecological validity because PT would be more aware that they were completing a research and may have been more open to demand characteristics
target population?
over 16s
sampling frame ?
AS psychology students from 4 classes
what was the sample and method ?
45 students
- using a random sampling done by assigning numbers to students who had agreed to take part and used a random number generator to select between 10 to 12 students from each class
characteristics of sample ?
- 45 AS psychology students
- aged between 16-19
- from a college in NW
- both female and male
strength of sample ?
by using random it eliminated the chance of researcher bias compared to a different method. this would represent our sampling frame of AS psychology students and would have good population validity
weakness of sample ?
- limited sampling frame of psych students which would mean we can only generalise findings to a group
- random doesn’t mean it is representative of different grips in sampling frame
- time consuming
first step in the procedure of the study ?
- two researchers went into AS psych class to ask students if they would be willing to take part in a study involving completing a short questioner on phone use and short test on colour identification. consents from were then handed out which explained what was involved, how long it would take ensuring confidentiality and right to withdraw
2nd , 3rd, 4th, 5th step in procedure ?
2 = 12 PT randomly generated out of all the people that gave consent to give us our random sample
3 = PT were taken individually to a quiet room with only the PT and two researchers present
4 = standardised instructions were read to the PT including the right to withdraw
5 = PT completed questionnaire on SPA
6th and 7th step in procedure
6 = then they completed the stroop test which was faced down on the desk, timer starts and once the PT turns the test over the timer is stopped once the PT has correctly identified all the colours. time taken to complete was recorded in seconds and noted down on the questionnaire to ensure the PT results for each co variable were kept together
7 = debrief form was then handed out which explained the full aims of the research and gave the PT a chance to withdraw data it also included contacts for further information and if they were worried about their addiction to smartphone use.
range for time taken ?
18 seconds
range of scores on the smartphone addiction questionnaire ?
39 - good range of scores
why did we chose the range ?
much quicker to calculate than standard deviation as we had a large sample of 45
what graph was used and why ?
scatter graph as we were looking for a relationship between SMA and time took in stroop test in seconds
- data collected were continuous data so appropriated for a scattergraph
scatter graph shows ?
weak positive relationship
what inferential statistic used ? and why ?
spearmint rank correlation coefficient
- looking for relationship between scores and time it took
- data we recorded was rime which is interval data which converted to ordinal data
level of significant chosen ?
p=0.05 for a one tailed test as we had a directional hypothesis
observed value ?
weak positive relationship of 0.402
critical table value ?
N=45 = 0.2383
justification for inferential statistic result ?
the observed value was greater than the critical table value the test was significant and we could reject the null hypothesis and accept the research hypothesis that were would be a positive relationship between score and time taken
issues with external reliability ?
as different researchers were collecting the data in different AS classes any differences in the way they collected the result which would result in inconsistent results
issue with internal reliability ?
one co variable was the score on SMA which consisted 10 questions, it is possible not all questions would measure SMA to the same extent.
how to deal with potential issues of reliability ?
- instructions standardised so that all researchers conducted the study in exactly the same way.
how could we have assessed reliability ?
test retest: if we wanted to check external reliability we could run he research again on the same same using the same procedures and questionnaire and troop test. we could have then compared both realists and if we obtained a coefficient of 0.8 or more we could say there was good external reliability
4 issues in validity ?
- investigator bias
- demand characteristics
- social desirability bias
- situational variables
assessing validity of research ?
We could have used content validity to test the validity of our co-variable (score on the smartphone addiction questionnaire). We could have found an expert on addictive behaviour and asked them to look through the 10 questions on the questionnaire to rate them on how well they measured addictive behaviour. If the expert gave high ratings we could say the test had high content validity.
ethical issues in this research ?
- fully informed consent
- confidentiality
- risk of harm
fully informed consent ?
We didn’t tell participants the full aim of our study as we felt that if they knew we were looking for a relationship between smartphone addiction and cognitive processing this would affect their behaviour and answers.
confidentiality ?
We didn’t tell participants the full aim of our study as we felt that if they knew we were looking for a relationship between smartphone addiction and cognitive processing this would affect their behaviour and answers.
risk of harm?
Taking part in the research may have meant that participants would become more aware and anxious about the two co-variables - smartphone addiction and performance on a test that measures cognitive processing (Stroop test). This may lead to anxiety and worry.
dealing with consent ?
Participants gave partial consent before the study (they kneww they would be completing a questionnaire on smartphone use and a cognitive test). At the end of the study they were given a debrief form in which the full aims of the study were explained and they were given the opportunity to withdraw their results if they were not happy with this.
dealing with confidentiality ?
No names were used on the questionnaire and the scores on the stroop test were written on each participants questionnaire so both could be kept together for analysis. The results form just had participant number and their scores on the co-variables so no results could be traced to individual participants.
dealing with risk of harm ?
In the consent form given before the study the participants were told that they had the right to withdraw at any time if they felt anxious when completing the SMA questionnaire or the Stroop test. In the debrief form the participants were given people they coil contact should they be concerned about either their cognitive processing skills or their smartphone addiction.
