Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > RESEARCH METHODS (1/3) > Flashcards

RESEARCH METHODS (1/3) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

internal validity

A

whether results are due to manipulation of IV and not another factor
control over extraneous variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

investigator effects

A

experimenter unconsciously conveys to participants how they should behave
experimenter bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

demand characteristics

A

cues which convey to participant the purpose of the study
participants guess the aims of the research and adjust behaviour accordingly
changes results if participants change behaviour to conform to expectations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

cause and effect

A

change in IV is causing a change in DV

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

external validity

A

can results be generalised?
is task realistic?
does it have mundane realism?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

ecological validity

A

participants should elicit natural behaviour as if were in real-life setting
environment is important - natural or artificial
refers to whether results can be generalised to other real-life settings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

population validity

A

refers to whether we can extrapolate findings of research to population as a whole
sex, socioeconomic status, occupation, religious belief, background, age, culture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

temporal validity

A

whether findings and conclusions are relevant today
attitudes can change over time e.g. homosexuality was once defined as a mental illness
political context at time of research can impact findings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

participant variables

A

characteristics of individual that may influence outcome of a study (age, intelligence, personality type, gender, socio-economic status)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

situational variables

A

characteristics of environment that might influence outcome of a study (distractions, atmospherics)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

researcher variables

A

variation in characteristics of researcher conducting experiment (gender, mood, sociability)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

research methods

A

strategies, processes and techniques
collect data or evidence
uncover new information, better understand

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

variables

A

anything that can be vary or be manipulated
independent = manipulated
dependent = measured

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

operationalisation

A

express variables in a form that can be measured
contains units
variables must be operationalised

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

control of variables

A

only achieved when all variables are constant
control group provides a baseline measure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

extraneous variables

A

may affect results and dependent variable if not controlled
participant, situational, experimenter bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

single blind procedure

A

participants don’t know whether they are part of the experiment or control group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

double blind procedure

A

neither participants or researcher knows whether in experiment or control group to avoid unconscious bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

confounding variables

A

any unmeasured variable that influences the dependent variable
if results are confounded, it is hard to draw causal conclusions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

reliability

A

consistency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

validity

A

accuracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

lab experiments

A

in a lab
IV directly manipulated
effect on DV measured
EVs controlled as much as possible
standardised procedure
randomly allocate participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

lab experiment strengths

A

isolation of IV on DV - cause and effect established
strict controls and procedures - easily replicated, check reliability
specialist equipment in research facility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

lab experiment weaknesses

A

artificial - not natural behaviour, reduced ecological validity
likely demand characteristics - adjust behaviour
can’t use when inappropriate to manipulate IV (impractical/unethical)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

field experiments

A

same as lab but in real-life setting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

field experiments strengths

A

high ecological validity - generalise findings to other settings
demand characteristics reduced - unaware of experiment, acts more naturally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

field experiments weaknesses

A

control reduced - more EVs - cause and effect not as easily established, reduces validity
unaware of taking part - could become distressed, difficult to inform, unethical
population validity reduced - on control over participants, may be biased

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

quasi experiments

A

similar to lab (similar strengths and weaknesses)
high degree of control over EVs
unable to freely manipulate IV
unable to randomly allocate participants (bias + confound results)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

natural experiments

A

no manipulation or control of any variable
naturally occurring variables
practical and ethical reasons - only method

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

natural experiments strengths

A

investigate impractical or unethical situations with any other method
ecological validity is high - study ‘real’ problems
demand characteristics reduced - unaware, act naturally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

natural experiments weaknesses

A

no random allocation of participants (bias + confound results)
no control over environment - reduce validity
ethical guidelines - informed consent, confidentiality, right to withdraw breached
natural events are rare - impossible to replicate for reliability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

aims

A

identifies purpose of investigation
straightforward expression of what the researcher is trying to find out

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

hypotheses

A

operationalised hypotheses is a precise, testable statement about the expected outcome of a piece of research i.e. prediction about a difference
researcher would write a directional / non-directional and a null hypotheses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

directional hypotheses

A

when researcher has good idea about what will happen
predict specific outcome about direction of differences
e.g. participants will give more electric shocks to a stranger after playing an anti-social computer game than after playing a non-aggressive game

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

non-directional hypotheses

A

when researcher is less sure about what is going to happen
predict that there will be a difference, but not which direction it will be in
e.g. there will be a significant difference in number of electric shocks given to a stranger after playing an anti-social computer game and after playing a non-aggressive game

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

null hypotheses

A

when researcher is confident that the IV will have no effect on the DV
e.g. there will be no difference in number of electric shocks given to a stranger after playing an anti-social computer game and after playing a non-aggressive game

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

random sampling

A

every person in target population has equal chance of being selected
obtains a list + computerised random generator used to select required amounts of participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

target population

A

group of people who share a given set of characteristics about who the researcher wishes to draw a conclusion
obtains just a sample
intend to generalise findings from sample to target population - should be representative of entire population

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

random sampling strengths

A

sample likely to be representative
researcher has no control over who is selected - reduces chance of biased sample
improves population validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

random sampling weaknesses

A

can be difficult and time-consuming
random generator, list of participants required
not time efficient unless small sample

does not guarantee a representative sample
some groups may still be overrepresented or underrepresented
may be less representative than stratified sampling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

opportunity sampling

A

selects anyone readily available and willing to take part
asks people most convenient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

opportunity sampling strengths

A

sample easy to obtain and cost effective
uses most available people around them
sample does not need to be identified prior to research

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

opportunity sampling weaknesses

A

sample unlikely to representative
uses most convenient people around them
participants likely to share similar characteristics and backgrounds, reducing population validity

ethical issues
researcher uses first people see and ask them to take part
students may feel pressure to take part of lecturers ask them, creating problems about consent and right to withdraw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

volunteer sampling

A

participants put themselves forward for inclusion - self-select
researcher places advertisement in magazine/newspaper, radio, email, internet, notice board asking for volunteers
place questionnaires and ask people to return answers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

volunteer sampling strengths

A

may be only way to locate particularly niche group of people - volunteer themselves to take part e.g. people with rare medical conditions or people suffering child abuse
can advertise for group otherwise difficult to identify
can save time in gathering sample where niche groups required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

volunteer sampling weaknesses

A

may lack generalisation
likely to be co-operative and motivated (want to spend more time in experiment, rely to give honest, genuine results) and have shared characteristics (psychological studies may involve people interest, know what to look for - demand characteristics)
limits population validity as fails to reflect wide variety of members from target population

may lack generalisation
relies upon people seeing advertisement to put themselves forward - similar characteristics (gym, app, magazine)
limits population validity as reduces size and variability of sample (similar backgrounds, readers of same newspaper)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

systematic sampling

A

every nth member of target population selected
sampling frame produced - list of people in target population organised in some way
sampling system nominated or determined randomly to reduce bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

systematic sampling strengths

A

avoids researcher bias
once system has been established, researcher has no influence over who is chosen
increases validity and should lead to more representative sample

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

systematic sampling weaknesses

A

does not guarantee representative sample
even through randomised, may still be over or underrepresented
less than other methods

time-consuimg
sampling frame and list of target population has to be stablished before selectio

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

stratified sampling

A

composition of sample reflects proportions of people in sub-groups / strata within target population
identifies different strata making up population
proportions calculated
participants selected through random sampling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

stratified sampling strengths

A

avoids researcher bias
once subdivided into strata, random sampling method ensures all groups are represented and researcher has no influence over who is chosen
gives accurate reflection of target population leading to higher population validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

stratified sampling weaknesses

A

time consuming
has to identify strata, proportions, selected randomly
requires knowing all participants and details of sample

not completely representative
identified strata cannot reflect all possible sub-groups - most identified strata likely to be considered but some less noticeable and more personal groups may be ignored

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

bias

A

when certain groups may be over or under represented within selected sample

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

generalisation

A

extent to which conclusions from particular investigation can be broadly applied to population
made possible if sample is representative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

self-report techniques

A

questionnaires and interviews
gather info from large numbers of people
investigate attitudes or opinions on particular topic
qualitative or quantitative data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

questionnaires

A

written format, less flexibility
no social interaction between researcher and participant
uses standardised procedure
pre-written questions
self-report data (asking people about feelings, attitudes or beliefs)
Likert scales

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

closed questions

A

gather quantitative data - easy to analyse

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

open questions

A

gather detailed qualitative data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

questionnaires strengths

A

highly replicable
standardised procedure - easily redistribute and check findings for reliability

time and cost efficient
large sample reached quickly and easily - large amount of data gained and analysed + statistical analysis used

investigator effects / researcher bias
researchers not present - cues less likely

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

questionnaires weaknesses

A

people may modify answers due to social desirability bias, reducing validity

sample biased towards more literate people - reduces validity and likely to be unrepresentative

researchers not always present, so participants cannot ask for help with unclear questions and may miss sections out, limited amount of info gathered

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

notes about questionnaires vs interviews

A

easy to repeat as researcher does no require specific training to distribute - data can be collected from large number of people - high in replicability

respondents may feel more able to reveal personal info (not face to face) - data more likely to be truthful and more valid

closed questions –> quantitative data –> easier to analyse and draw comparisons than open questions –> qualitative data –> difficult to analyse

only certain types of people do questionnaires (depending on where and how distributed), may be sample bias, only people with similar characteristics may do them, decreasing representativeness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

interviews

A

include social interactions
researchers require specific training
asking questions to participant and response recorded or transcribed
gather self-report behaviour
open and closed questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

structured interviews

A

fixed predetermined questions
large-scale interview based surveys e.g. market research

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

semi-structured interviews

A

guidelines for questions to be asked
phrasing and timing left up to interviewer
questions may be open-ended

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

unstructured interviews

A

may contain a topic area
no fixed questions
researcher asks questions + further questions depending on answers given
interviewer helps participants and clarifies questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

interviews strengths

A

more appropriate dealing with complex/sensitive issues - can gauge is participant is distressed or not, can stop research and offer additional support

research is present - interesting issues and misunderstandings can be followed up immediately - richer and more insightful data gathered, increasing validity

lots of rich qualitative data gathered (especially in unstructured interviews) compared to questionnaires as there are fewer constraints in place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

interviews weaknesses

A

more likely to elicit social desirability affected answer as there is interaction

low inter-rater reliability between interviews (of same participant) as investigator effects are likely

extremely time consuming
prepare for conduct, spend lots of time with each participant
take time to analyse and difficult to compare

should be conducted by trained psychologist - more costly

68
Q

independent groups design

A

different participants placed in each group
two separate groups
used to ensure results not influenced by order effects, reduce chance of demand characteristics and when repeated measures cannot be used

69
Q

independent groups design strengths

A

each participant take part only once - only need one set of stimulus materials

order effects e.g. boredom, tiredness and learning are reduced because they only experience one condition, increasing validity

reduces chance of demand characteristics - only take part once, more difficult to identify differences between conditions and guess aim, less likely to adapt behaviour, increasing internal validity

70
Q

independent groups design weaknesses

A

different sets of participants compared - individual differences may confound results

more participants required as two groups are needed
more expensive when larger sample

population validity may affect findings as participants only take part in one condition, more variation between groups, less valid to draw meaningful conclusions

71
Q

repeated measures design

A

same participants used in both conditions - each person takes part twice
used to reduce influence of individual differences
used where participants are difficult to obtain (fewer participants needed for large sample size)
introduces order effects - extraneous variables e.g. practice effects, fatigue, boredom

72
Q

counterbalancing

A

order of conditions is mixed up
half of participants experience experimental condition and then control other half do control first
doesn’t eliminate order effects but means that they are equal across both conditions - negative effect reduced

73
Q

repeated measures design strengths

A

results of each participant are compared - individual differences do not affect results
participant variables controlled, each person acts as their own control
special features of individuals will be cancelled out

fewer participants required as same sample used twice - design economical

74
Q

repeated measures design weaknesses

A

participants experience both conditions
order effects might confound results, affecting validity

at least two sets of stimulus materials required
can create confounding results associated with materials e.g. word lists differing in difficulty

increased chance of demand characteristics
may identify differences between conditions and adjust behaviour

75
Q

matched pairs design

A

different participants used in each condition but are matched on key variables to form pairs to imitate repeated measures
used when important to control for individual differences but cannot use repeated measures due to order effects and demand characteristics
match participants as closely as possible in terms of characteristics relevant to the study - form pairs

76
Q

matched pairs design strengths

A

each participant only takes part once - only one set of stimulus materials needed, reducing chance of confounding results

order effects reduced - only experience one condition

participants variables reduced, though not totally reduced
individual differences beyond matched characteristics may exist

77
Q

matched pairs design weaknesses

A

matching process is difficult and time consuming
may be inaccurate, incomplete, invalid
participant variables never fully controlled

attrition may be an issue - loss of one participants means loss of two sets of data

78
Q

Naturalistic observation

A

Studying spontaneous behaviour in natural surroundings
Record what they see
No intervention
Qualitative notes of human behaviour
Behavioural categories

79
Q

Naturalistic observation strengths

A

High in ecological / external validity
Take place in natural environments, natural tasks (mundane realism)
Behaviour likely to be natural (reduces demand characteristics and Hawthorne effect)

80
Q

naturalistic observation weaknesses

A

ethical issues
participants may not be aware of observation in natural environment - issues with informed consent, confidentiality and debrief
participants should only be studied in environments where people know they are likely to be observed, thus limiting number of situations they can be used

low in reliability
natural environment - other factors not controlled, likely to confound results
lack of control

conducted on small scale
lack representative sample (bias to age, gener, class, ethnicity)
lack generalisability

81
Q

controlled observation

A

usually structured observation
carried out in lab
standardised procedure - where, when and with who, in what circumstance
behavioural categories
usually overt and non-participant

82
Q

controlled observation strengths

A

high in reliability
controlled environment with standardised procedure and high levels of control
easily replicated

quick to conduct, many observations carried out (qualitative data)
large sample obtained
findings representative and easily generalised

ethical issues reduced
participants debriefed and give informed consent
more likely to adhere to ethical guidelines and able to offer debrief

83
Q

controlled observation weaknesses

A

low in ecological / external validity
take place in unnatural environment - lacks mundane realism
behaviour unnatural, influenced by demand characteristics and Hawthorne effect

84
Q

covert observation

A

undisclosed
participants don’t know that they are being observed
must occur in public to be ethical - knows are visible to others

85
Q

covert observation strengths

A

high external validity
not aware of observation
behaviour more natural, more valid

86
Q

covert observation weaknesses

A

prone to ethical issues
not aware of observation, no informed consent
lack of protection from harm and privacy violated - may not have wanted to take part

practical difficulties
difficult to remain undetected, no recording equipment, crucial behaviours may be missed
reduces validity and accuracy of data

87
Q

overt observation

A

participants are aware they are being observed
informed consent gathered

88
Q

overt observation strengths

A

less ethical issues
informed consent gathered
agreed to take part, protection from harm

89
Q

overt observation weaknesses

A

low external validity
aware of observation
behaviour likely to be unnatural, influence by demand characteristics and Hawthorne effect

90
Q

participant observation

A

researcher joins in and becomes part of the group they are studying to get a deeper insight
either covert: study carried out undercover, real identity and purpose concealed, false identity, pose as member of group
or overt: researcher reveals identity and purpose

91
Q

participant observation weaknesses

A

practical difficulties
difficult to remain undercover, problematic to accurately note and record behaviour, reflections have to be written retrospectively
validity decreased

ethical issues
involve degree of deception - not aware researcher is studying behaviour
violates privacy

92
Q

non-participant observation

A

observing participants without researcher participating
from a distance

93
Q

non-participant observation strengths

A

less practical difficulties
behaviour recorded as it occurs
validity and reliability increased

94
Q

inter-rater reliability

A

observation prone to bias if there is only one researcher
measure of consistency
different researchers compare results to check reliability
statistical measurement to determine how similar data collected from different people are
high = positive correlation

95
Q

behavioural categories

A

list / tally of behaviours likely to occur during an observation - defines what they will record
quantitative
should be operationalised, observable, defined, unambiguous
count frequencies of behaviour seen and totals used to draw conclusions

should improve inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability (single observer’s consistency) as decreases subjectivity

96
Q

event sampling

A

target behaviour established
researcher recorders every time it happens
useful when behaviour is infrequent and can be missed with time sampling

may miss other important events - limited in detail
doesn’t explain why data occurs - can’t establish cause of behaviour

97
Q

time sampling

A

researcher records behaviour in fixed time frame e.g. every 60th second
reduces number of observations made

may be unrepresentative - risk missing other events
lots of behaviour to record - not singled out

98
Q

correlations

A

relationship between two co-variables
data analysed for relationship between two variables
indicates how accurately use measurement of one variable to predict another

plot scatter graph, gradient indicates correlation coefficient

can’t establish cause and effect - only a relationship

99
Q

type of correlations

A

positive - both variables increase together
negative - one increases, other decreases
zero - no relationship

100
Q

strength of correlation co-efficient

A

-1 to +1 (perfect negative/perfect positive)
less than 0 = negative
0.0 - 0.3 = weak
0.3 - 0.7 = moderate
0.7 - 1 = strong

101
Q

correlations strengths

A

allows us to investigate otherwise unethical situations e.g. manipulate sensitive variables, child abuse, depression, illness
just looking at relationship between co-variables

lead to new research and used as starting point before committing to experimental studies
easy, nothing needs to be set up - just pre-existing data

time and cost-efficient
pre-existing secondary data
researcher can readily access data without validity issues and practical considerations

control for individual differences
both sets of data come from same participants
natural control over participant effects

102
Q

correlations weaknesses

A

do not infer causation - cannot establish cause and effect
only tell us whether a relationship exists
cannot tell us if one causes another - usefulness is limited

validity issues
another untested variable may impact relationship - third variable problem
inaccurate conclusions are commonplace

validity issues in terms of data collection methods
may lack validity - often use self-report methods which lead to social desirability
may invalidate correlation if flaws in data collection

103
Q

qualitative data

A

non-numerical language-based data collected through interviews, open questions and content analysis
allows researchers to develop insight into the nature of subjective experiences, opinions and feelings
subjective, difficult to analyse, imprecise, non-numerical data, rich in detail, low in reliability
used for attitudes, beliefs and opinions
collected in real life settings
open questions / interviews

104
Q

quantitative data

A

numerical data that can be statistically analysed through experiments, observations, correlations and closed or rating questions from questionnaires
objective and easy to analyse
precise numerical data
limited detailed
high in reliability (easy to repeat)
closed questions / questionnaires

105
Q

qualitative / quantitative data
scientific objectivity

A

quantitative is scientifically objective
numerical data can be interpreted using statistical analysis
based on principles of mathematics and allow researchers to objectively conclude whether statistically significant relationships or differences have been found
analysis is free from bias and interpretation, so high in objectivity

qualitative is highly subjective
because involves non-numerical language-based data
cannot be easily compared or categorised
means analysis is open to bias and interpretation

106
Q

qualitative / quantitative data
replication

A

quantitative can be easily replicated
based on measure, numerical values
such data requires minimal interpretation from researchers
consistent analysis by multiple researchers - highly replicable and reliable

107
Q

qualitative / quantitative data
depth of detail

A

qualitative is highly valid
based on non-numeric, detailed responses
in-depth and insightful - provide unexpected responses
opportunity to capture rich, descriptive data about how people think and behave - can lead to new insights

quantitative is less valid
based on numeric data which is quantifiable
such data is narrow and lacks depth or detail and nature of turning thoughts and feelings into numbers can be seen as superficial

when gathering quantitative data, respondents may be forced to select answers which do not reflect their real life thoughts and feelings, leading to data which is superficial, lacks detail and therefore has lower validity

108
Q

qualitative / quantitative data
natural settings

A

qualitative is more valid
likely to have been gathered in more natural environments e.g. a researcher carrying out a case study of experience of mental illness would make use of wide range of qualitative methods e.g. interviews, observations
increase likelihood of natural behaviour
more valid and credible

quantitative data is less valid
likely to have been gathered in artificial, controlled environments
increases unnatural behaviour and demand characteristics
lacks validity and credibility

109
Q

qualitative / quantitative data
cost / time implications

A

quantitative is more time and cost effective
immediately produce numerical info form large sample sizes
easily compared and analysed
produce lots of data fairly quickly

qualitative data is less
data has to be transformed before analysis can be carried out
transforming data into categorises can be lengthy and subjective process
methods are more difficult to run

110
Q

content analysis

A

way of analysing qualitative data in a numerical way (qual –> quan)
analyses secondary source content e.g. adverts, films, diaries
categorise using top-down or bottom-up approach

111
Q

top-down approach

A

pre-defined categories before research

112
Q

bottom-up approach

A

allows categories to emerge from content
watch or read first to come up with categories
won’t miss important themes - provides more detail

113
Q

quantitative analysis

A

create coding system and tally each time a behavioural category occurs
should be pre-defined and clearly operationalised - less subjective, limits misinterpretation, more clear, increases accuracy and validity
statistical analysis then carried out
more scientific, reliable, valid - can look at significant differences or relationships

114
Q

qualitative (thematic) analysis

A

familiarise with data
generate initial codes
search for initial emerging themes, lots of different codes to sort into themes
review themes, may collapse into each other, cross-over
define and name themes
write up

115
Q

quantitative analysis process

A

data collected
read/ examine data to familiarise - if bottom up
identify coding units
data analysed by applying coding units
tally each time coding unit appears

116
Q

content analysis strengths

A

highly reliable
easily replicated - standardisation of coding units, pre-existing secondary data
same material coded more than once (intra-rater reliability) or by different researchers (inter-rater reliability)
can check for consistency
BUT subjectivity may affect findings, can define codes differently, decreasing consistently

likely to be highly ethical
already in public domain (no privacy issues)
does not involve direct use of participants - no ethical issues due to this
BUT researcher needs to ensure that they have consent of stakeholders to analyse confidential records
can be difficult

117
Q

content analysis weaknesses

A

prone to subjective analysis
involves interpreting qualitative data from secondary sources alongside a coding system
affected by gender, cultural background of researcher
prone to researcher bias

118
Q

case studies

A

focusing on one person/small group
gathers detailed data through a variety of techniques - triangulation - (psychometric testing, interviews, observations) qual + quan
mostly longitudinal - over extended period of time
when one person has gone through a unique situation which is uncommon and cannot be replicated
holistic view of human behaviour - look at everything about a person that can affect behaviour
preferred by psychodynamic and humanistic psychologists

119
Q

triangulation

A

use of multiple methods or data sources in qualitative research to develop a comprehensive understanding of phenomena
used to test validity through convergence of info from different sources
improves validity - more data gathered
gain holistic understanding of individual

120
Q

case studies strengths

A

high internal validity
triangulation - multiple techniques to gather lots of data (qual and quan) to produce rich, detailed data, each technique validates the others
rich data provides detailed insights and deeper analysis is possible, providing an accurate and exhaustive measure of aims

can stimulate new paths for research
detail collected on one case lead to interesting findings that conflict with current theories e.g. Broca’s area, speech production
often catalyst for further experimental research

121
Q

case studies weaknesses

A

low population validity
only involve one participant in unique situation
unable to generalise data to wider population or replicate situation

low reliability
unusual situation that cannot be replicated (unethical)
cannot test for reliability

validity issues
relationships may form between researcher and participant due to extensive and frequent contact
researcher bias and investigator effects due to longitudinal studies, become too invested, decrease validity

122
Q

pilot studies

A

small scale pilot studies used to carry out trial runs before committing to full-scale main studies to help foresee any costly problems e.g. method/design, instructions, procedure, materials, measurements
problems can then be rectified or study scrapped without entire participant sample and set of stimulus materials wasted
saves time and money
judge likelihood of significant results being found
not possible for natural experiments and case studies - events/participants so rare that it would be too wasteful to sacrifice a sample

123
Q

pilot studies for interviews and questionnaires

A

questionnaires may be too hard or too easy - results not varied enough for useful data to be gathered
questions changed before real study so results are more useful
don’t waste time and money measuring something irrelevant, make sure questions are clear and make sense, participants’ reactions not to induce emotions affecting responses

124
Q

peer review

A

part of scientific process
after study, report submitted for peer review
helps to ensure integrity and can be taken seriously by scientific community

125
Q

peer review process

A

draft article submitted for publication
editor reads article to check suitability for journal
sent to experts to check quality (researchers’ peers in same field)
quality and significance tested e.g. subject, importance methodology, interesting, ethical, logical conclusions, original findings, appropriateness for journal
recommendation made to editor - approval or rejection
revision usually expected
editor makes final decision
typically high rejection rates - process can take several months or years

126
Q

peer review purpose

A

allows for allocation of research fundings
- paid by government or charities, help determine where funding should go

ensures only high quality research is disseminated
- scientific evidence becomes part of mainstream thinking and practice, so vital that conclusions are based on valid methods and accurate presentation
- only show true information to prevent public believing wrong information e.g. MMR vaccine, autism
- poor research would damage integrity of field and discipline, high standards maintained

quality assurance
- leads to practical applications in people’s lives
- necessary that recommendations can be founded and do not have negative consequences

gives work and journal higher authenticity and integrity
- can be scrutinised, trusted, respected and taken seriously

checks for fraud and fabrication, ensures conclusions not based on opinion
- personal bias - unlikely to spot own errors

127
Q

types of peer review

A

single blind
double blind
open

128
Q

single blind peer review

A

author doesn’t know identity of reviewer
+ anonymity allows reviewer to be honest without fear of criticism
+ knowing author and affiliation allows use of previous knowledge
- knowing author may overshadow quality - leading to lack of scrutiny, especially if good track record
- potential for discrimination

129
Q

double blind peer review

A

author and reviewer do not know each other’s identity
+ research judged fairly without bias
+ both benefit from protection from criticism
- anonymity not guaranteed - discovered through area of research, references or writing style
- knowledge of identity helps come to informed judgement

130
Q

open peer review

A

identity of reviewer and author known by all participants during and after the review process
+ transparency encourages accountability and civility, improving overall quality of review and article
+ reviewers more motivated to do a thorough job - names and comments part of published article
- some reviewers may refuse open system - concerns of identification as source of negative review
- could be reluctant to criticise more senior researchers - career may depend on them, significant in small research communities

131
Q

peer review strengths

A

ensures validity and credibility
purpose is to promote and maintain high standards in research through scrutiny of procedures and conclusions
likely that data is trustworthy and only high quality research is disseminated

increases probability of weaknesses and errors being identified
process involves submitting to journal, sent for review, then to editor - can take months or years before publication but more chance of errors being spotted
researcher bias - less objective about own work - helps to promote objectivity

132
Q

peer review weaknesses

A

contributes to file drawer effect
more likely to submit positive results than negative or inconclusive results
findings challenging existing understanding may be overlooked
publication bias, some research overlooked

can be subject to bias
anonymity not maintained, experts with conflict of interest may not approve research to further own reputation / career
may lead to bias in research that is published and disseminated in the field

133
Q

primary data

A

collected first hand by researcher directly from group of participants for specific research purpose
collected through observation, psychometric test, interview etc.
qualitative or quantitative data

134
Q

secondary data

A

someone else already collected data for different purpose
information stored on record for other researchers
re-analyse data for new purpose
e.g. medical records, employee absence records

135
Q

primary and secondary data evaluation
practical issues

A

primary data can be time consuming and expensive to gather
have to conduct experiment or observation and gather participants, find a location and time
ethical guidelines need to be considered when directly interacting with participants, need approval of ethics board
more costly and demanding than accessing pre-existing data from secondary sources

secondary data is time and cost efficient
do not have to carry out own research - data is readily accessible
no ethics complications, no interaction with participants

136
Q

primary and secondary data evaluation
validity

A

secondary data is lower in validity
been collected for a different purpose
not entirely relevant to research question and not fit needs of investigation

secondary data lacks temporal validity
may have been gathered a long time ago and may no longer be applicable to modern society if temporal shift or shift in societal views that may influence behaviour or opinions
reduced validity and usefulness, applicability and relevance

137
Q

primary and secondary data evaluation
replicability

A

primary data is more reliable
data collected first hand, plan research and operationalise appropriately
well-documented procedures, controlled manner
replicability possible, check for consistency to validate

not possible for secondary data
may not have detailed enough standardised procedure, not able to replicate exactly or understand possible extraneous or confounding variables

138
Q

primary and secondary data evaluation
ethical considerations

A

primary data involves participants
ethics board consulted
when studying sensitive issues, take care to not cause psychological or physical harm, gain informed consent

still ethical issues on use of secondary data
issue of confidentiality, consent and safe storage
if data is in public domain consent is implied, approval only needed if personal info used to identity participants or where access is restricted

139
Q

meta-analysis

A

systematic review that involves identifying an aim and then searching for research studies that have addressed similar aims / hypotheses
achieved by searching databases
quantitative research technique with data from multiple studies to get one combined answer - data reviewed together
integrates results from all published studies on one topic, identify trends and relationships
sample size = no. of studies –> large sample size
useful when weak or contradictory evidence, get clearer whole picture
more generalisable, uses scientific approach
can be impacted by publication / researcher bias

140
Q

measures of central tendency

A

how close scores are to average
mean, median, mode

141
Q

mean

A

interval / ratio data (can be converted into ordinal or nominal data)
adding all scores and dividing by number of scores
less useful if fairly even distribution around centre

142
Q

mean weaknesses

A

can be skewed by anomalies - rogue scores can significantly increase or decrease mean scores - not representative

not always an actual score (2.4 children) - not accurate reflection of data set

142
Q

mean strengths

A

accurate and sensitive - takes all numbers into consideration, highly representative

is numerical centre point of actual values - used to calculate standard deviation

143
Q

median

A

ordinal data (can be converted into nominal data)
middle score when data in ordered list (or middle scores’ average)
less useful when extreme high or low scores

144
Q

median strengths

A

unaffected by extreme scores - only concerned with middle scores - more accurate and representative

quick and easy to calculate

145
Q

median weaknesses

A

may not be an actual score - not representative

not appropriate in small data sets or when there are large differences

146
Q

mode

A

nominal data (cannot be converted into ordinal or interval)
most common score
can be bi-modal or multi-modal if multiple common scores
least useful, especially when there are multiple modes

147
Q

mode strengths

A

unaffected by extreme scores - more representative

always an actual score - accurate representation

148
Q

mode weaknesses

A

sometimes doesn’t have a mode or has many - limited usefulness

doesn’t use all data - accuracy questioned

149
Q

measures of dispersion

A

how spread out scores are - provides fuller picture
analyse how far away scores are from average responses - spread / variability
normally large dispersion is due to individual differences or poor experimental control
range, standard deviation

150
Q

range

A

ordinal data
difference between highest and lowest score

151
Q

range strengths

A

easy and simple to calculate
takes into account extreme values

152
Q

range weaknesses

A

ignores most of the data - doesn’t reflect true distribution
easily distorted by extreme values (only looks at 2 values, highest and lowest values are likely to be the extreme values, if any)

153
Q

standard deviation

A

measures collectively how much individual scores deviate from the mean, presenting this as a single number –> how much data is dispersed
interval / ratio data
indicates average distances of scores around the mean
takes every score into account
the larger the SD, the more spread out they are relative to the mean

154
Q

standard deviation strengths

A

precise as all values accounted for, accurate representation of distribution, detailed conclusions made

allows for interpretation of individual scores in terms of how it falls from the mean (130 IQ = 2 SDs away from the mean)

complex to calculate, more difficult to understand
not quick or easy to calculate
less meaningful if not normally distributed

155
Q

standard deviation commenting on the spread

A

large spread suggest inconsistencies in data, highlighting individual differences
larger SD, the more spread out, more variability
smaller SD, more similar the scores

156
Q

normal distributions

A

probability distribution symmetric about the mean
data near the mean is more frequent than data far away from the mean
appears as a bell curve
mean, median and mode appear at the same point with the same value - at highest point in the middle
SD = 68% within 1 SD of the mean, 95% within 2
statistical infrequency = how far score is from mean can define abnormality

157
Q

skewed distributions

A

asymmetric distribution of scores
mean, median and mode have different values
most scores on one side with long skews on the opposite side to the majority

158
Q

positive skew

A

skew towards the positive scale
more scores at lower end, less high scores (e.g. test is too hard)
outliers at higher end

159
Q

negative skew

A

skew towards negative scale
more scores at higher end of graph, outliers at lower end
lots of high scores, less lower scores (e.g. test is too easy)

160
Q

probability

A

refers to the likelihood of an event occurring
expressed as number or percentage

161
Q

significance

A

inferential statistical tests necessary to determine whether results are significant or simply due to chance
shows which hypothesis to accept or reject
use probability of p =< 0.05
- likelihood of the data (in terms of difference or relationship found) being due to a random chance is less than or equal to 5%.
- there is less than or equal to 5% chance of the null hypothesis being true

162
Q

type 1 error

A

false positive (claiming that there is a significant difference when there isn’t)
claims support for research hypothesis with significant result when caused by random variables and not really significant
level of significance not cautious enough p =< 0.10

163
Q

type 2 error

A

false negative (claiming there is no significant difference when there is)
accepts null hypothesis, claiming there is no significance, when there is an effect beyond chance
level of significance is too stringent e.g. p = <0.01

164
Q
A
165
Q
A
165
Q
A

Psychology (25 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions