research methods Flashcards
extraneous variable
a variable other than the independent that may affect the DV. these don’t vary systematically with the IV.
confounding variable
a type of EV that varies systematically with the IV.
operationalise
to make your variables measurable (specific)
random allocation, important because…
using chance to separate participants into different conditions
…to avoid bias, and limits effect of participant variables (by spreading out each type of person)
standardisation, important because…
using exactly the same formalised procedures + instructions for all participants in a research study
…limits effect of extraneous variables
randomisation, important because…
use of chance methods to control for the effects of bias when designing materials and deciding order of experimental conditions
…limits effect of EVs
demand characteristics
cues from the researcher or the situation that may be interpreted by the participants as revealing the purpose of the investigation, which could lead to a change in their behaviour
investigator effects
effects of investigator’s behaviour on the research. can involve design of study, selection of participants and interaction with participants
single-blind
single blind is where participants don’t know what condition they’re in
…reduces demand characteristic as they don’t know what you want them to do and change accordingly
double-blind
double blind is neither participants or investigator know what condition they’re in
…reduces demand characteristics and investigator effect. if investigator doesn’t know condition they can’t expect anything and give anything away
lab experiment strength and weakness
s: high control over CV and EV so we can be sure DV changes are due to IV. study has high validity
w: may lack generalisability to real life, because settings are artificial and participants are aware of being studied, so may show unnatural behaviour due to demand characteristics
s: high control = replication more possible, so can check reliability
w: lacks mundane realism - dissimilar to what we do in everyday life
experimental designs:
independent groups, good bad
participants randomly allocated to different groups where each group represents one experimental condition
good: order effects not a problem, less time to set up groups than matched pairs, participants less likely to guess aims
bad: participant variables could effect results, more time taken finding participants
experimental designs:
repeated measures, good bad
all participants take part in all conditions of experiment
good: participant variables controlled(higher validity), fewer participants needed
bad: order effects could cause boredom and fatigue causing deterioration or could get better, demand characteristics. use counterbalancing
experimental designs:
matched pairs, good bad
pairs of participants are first matched on some variable(s) that may affect the DV. Then one member of the pair is assigned to condition A and the other to condition B
good: order effects and demand characteristics less problematic, reduces effect of participant variables
bad: time consuming and ecpensive
counterbalancing
ABBA - the first ten participants take part in Condition 1 then Condition 2, the other half do the conditions in the opposite order
it attempts to control order effects
sampling methods:
random
potentially unbiased, confounding/extraneous variables should be equally divided between different groups enhancing internal validity
- difficult and time consuming to conduct
sampling methods:
systematic
objective, once the system for selection has been established the researcher has no influence over who is chosen
- time consuming, participants may refuse to take part
sampling methods:
stratified
produces representative sample as it’s designed to accurately reflect composition of population, so generalisation of findings becomes possible
- not perfect, identified strata can’t reflect all the ways people are different
sampling methods:
opportunity
convenient, less costly in time and money than random sampling as list of members of target pop isn’t required
- sample unrepresentative of target pop as it’s drawn from a very specific area
sampling methods:
volunteer
easy, requires minimal input from researcher so less time consuming, the researcher ends up with more engaged participants
- volunteer bias, may attract certain types of people who are more curious, trying to please researcher (affected how far findings can be generalised)
aim
statement outlining why research is being done, usually begins with “the aim is to discover/find out/see…if/whether”
hypothesis
PRECISE and TESTABLE statement of the relationship between two variables
field experiment strengths and weaknesses
s:real life setting is good, gives high ecological validity
w: less control over CV and EV
s: fewer demand characteristics so participants may behave more naturally
w: potential ethical issues if they don’t know they are being studied
natural experiments strengths and weaknesses
s: high external validity
w: lack of control over CVs - cannot randomly allocate groups so may be participant variables
s: allows us to study things that would otherwise be unethical
w: less control of EVs
quasi experiment strengths and weaknesses
participants can’t be randomly allocated because their condition is already set eg age
s: controlled conditions improve replicability
w: cannot randomly allocate conditions so may be confounding variables
ethical guidelines
(can do can’t do with participants)
C - Confidentiality (& privacy)
D - Deception
C - Consent (informed)
D - Debrief
W - right to Withdraw
P - Protection of participants
ethics - informed consent
Ps must be told about anything ‘that might reasonably affect their willingness to participate’
- aims of the research, procedure, their rights, what data will be used for
presumptive consent: ask other similar people
prior general consent: permission given beforehand to take part in a number of studies
retrospective consent: consent given afterwards
ethics - deception
withholding information from Ps - can affect informed consent
should be avoided if possible
ethics - protection from harm
should be no physical or psychological harm
- Ps should leave unchanged from how they entered