Research Methods Flashcards
Empirical method
Using a procedure that means you are only measuring what can be directly observed (observable hard evidence)
Replicability
To be able to replicate research and get the same findings.
- this is done in a controlled and standardised approach (control of variables)
- also helps determine causation
Paradigm Shift
When an important change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline occurs (e.g flat earth —> round earth)
Objectivity
The tendency to base judgments and interpretations on external data rather than on subjective factors, such as personal feelings, beliefs, and experiences.
Falsifiability
The principle that a proposition or theory could only be considered scientific if in principle it was possible to establish it as false.
Reliability
The overall consistency of a study ( can someone else repeat it and get similar results)
Validity
The ability of a test to measure what it was set out to measure
Standardisation
Where the procedures used in research are kept the same (e.g same order, same instructions)
Internal validity vs External Validity
Internal : The extent to which the effects of a study are due to the manipulation of the independent variable - with no influence of any extraneous or confounding variables. (Demand characteristics are a major threat for internal validity)
External : Howe generalisable the findings are
Paradigm
consists of the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methods of study that are commonly accepted by members of a discipline or group.
Hypothesis testing
uses sample data to evaluate the credibility of a hypothesis about a population.
Null hypothesis
Predicts no pattern or trend in results.
“There will be no difference/correlation…”
Experimental hypothesis
Predicts a significant difference or correlation in results between conditions.
Independent variable/ dependent variable/ control variable
IV -> change
DV -> measure
CV -> keep
Experimental designs
How participant’s are allocated in experimental condition:
- independent measures
- repeated measures
- matched pairs
Repeated measures + evaluation
Testing a participants under both conditions
Criticisms:
- may perform better on second condition due to practice effect = order effects
- may perform worse on second condition due to fatigue and boredom (order effects)
- cause demand characteristics
Pros:
- one participant does all conditions so fewer participants needed
- no problems with individual differences as same person for each condition, controlling participant variables.
Independent measures + evaluation
The participants in one condition are independent from participants in the other (only participate in one condition).
Criticisms:
- differences in conditions may be due to individual differences
- potentially more sample needed
Pros:
- no demand characteristics as they cannot compare knowledge from previous conditions
- no order effects as they do not know what the other condition is, as only sit one condition
Demand characteristics
Participants changing their behaviour/answers purposefully to either aid or hinder an experiment
Social desirability
Participants changing their answered as they wished to be liked by the experimenter
Types of sample definitions
- Random sample -> a sample selected at chance
- Opportunity sampling ->a sample selected by convenience
- Volunteer sampling -> self selected sample chosen by themselves via eg an ad.
- Systematic sampling-> involves taking every nth person from a list to create a sample
- Stratified random samples -> The composition of the sample reflects the proportions of people in certain subgroups (strata) within the target population or the wider population.
Experiment types/method + criticisms
Lab -> IV is manipulated by researcher in a controlled environment (true exp)
cons: low ecological validity as artificial , demand characteristics + experimenter effects
pros: replicable/reliable due to being well controlled, easy to establish cause and effect
Field -> IV is manipulated by researcher in a naturalistic setting (true exp)
cons: lack of control over extraneous variables so less replicable/reliable, harder to establish cause and effect, issues with getting informed consent
pros: high ecological validity so displays real human behavior, less chance of demand characteristics + experimenter effects
Natural -> IV is not directly manipulated in a natural environment (e.g piaget)
cons: lack of control over extraneous variables so less replicability/reliability, IV is not deliberately changed so we cannot claim the IV has caused any observed change
pros: high ecological validity so displays real human behavior (situational IV)
Quasi-experiment -> IV is already pre-existing (e.g age, gender) and has not been determined. IV cannot be changed unlike natural experiments .
cons: confounding variables as cannot randomly allocate participants into conditions, IV is not deliberately changed so we cannot claim the IV has caused any observed change./ small sample size therefore not generalisable(individual differences)
pros: controlled conditions so is reliable/replicable (based on the individual)
Extraneous variables
Any variable that you’re not investigating that may affect the dv
Quantitative data vs qualitative data + evaluate
Quan-> numerical data
Pros:
-scientifically objective, easily replicated as the data obtained does not need a lot of interpretation of results so more reliable (easier to identify patterns and trends)
-can use it to reject or accept nul hypothesis
Cons:
-require large samples to get useful data
-poor knowledge of stats can lead to misinterpretation of a=data
-low construct validity = simplifies complexity
Qual -> descriptive data
Pros:
- in depth/detailed therefore more information about a single case (high validity)
- can lead to possible investigations of cause and effect and relationships
Cons:
-time consuming
-expensive
-less generalisable
-no statistical tests or information (easier to understand with numbers> pages of writing)
-samples do not have a large data set affecting reliability of data as it can be subjective in nature
Observer effect
Subjects altering their behaviour when they are aware that an observer is present