Research Methods Flashcards
define experimental methods and types
manipulation of IV to have an effect on the DV which is measured
natural
field
laboratory
Quasi
hypothesis
directional - states direction/relationship
- IV operationalized
-DV operationalized
-Direction
eg: particiapnts who attened a revision session will have a highre test score than those who dont attend a session
a hypothesis should be non directional if there
* no previous research
* inconsistent findings
Define a Quasi experiment
An experiment where the IV has not been determined by the researcher instead it naturally exists
* gender
* age
* height
A memory task with a group of clinically depressed participants compared to a control group of non-depressed participants
evaluation of Quasi experiments
**strenght: **
controlled conditions = replicable + high internal validity
**Weaknesses: **
cannot randomly allocate participants to conditions so there may be cofounding variables = harder to conclude cause and effect
define a natural experiment
IV is not manipulated by the experimenter and is naturally occuring
* reaction to earthquakes
* Rutters adoption study - adopt at 6 months or not
evaluation of natural experiment
strenght:
* high external validity as are invesitgating real life issues
* provides opportunity for research that would else be impossible- due to ethics eg
Weaknesses:
* naturally occuring events may be rare so may not be replicable = hard to generalise findings
define a field experiment
conducted in a natural setting where variables are manipualted and controlled
* Bickman
* classroom where new learning method is tested
evaluation of field experiement
strenght
* naturalistic = high ecological validity and applicable to real life
* controlled IV
weakness
* ethical consideration - invasion of privacy and likely to informed consent
* loss of control over extraneous variables = not wholely replicable
define laboratory experiment
takes place in environment where variables are highly controlled
evaluation of laboratory experiment
strenght:
* high degree of control of all variables = method is replicable
weakness:
* experimenter bias - particiapnts can be infleucned by experimenters expectations
* low ecological valditiy- situation if artificial so not highyl genralisable
observation techniques
define a overt + evaluation
participants are being watched and behaviour is being recorded and know they are being watched
* ethically acceptable - can give informed consent
* demand characteristics - more likely to unantural behaviours as participants knwo they are being watched = reduced validity
observation technqiues
define covert + evaluate
participants are unaware that they are being watched and behaviour is recorded
* natural behaviour is recorded = high internal valdiity due to less demand characterisitscs
* ethical issues - no informed consent and invasion of privacy
define naturalistic observation and evaluate
watching and recording behaviour is setting where it normally takes place
* high ecological valdiity
* high external validity - as it a natural environemnet
* BUT low ecological validity if participants are aware they are being watched
* replication can be difficult
* uncontrolled and cofoudnign variables are present
define controlled observation and evaluate
watching and recording behaviour in a structured environement
* researcher is able to focus on particular aspect of behaviour
* there is more contorl over extraneous and cofounding variables
* easy replication
- more likely to observe unatural behaviour as takes place in an unatural environemnt
- low mundane realism and low ecological validty
- demadn characteristic
define participant observation and evaluation
the researcher who is observing is part of the participant group
* can be more insightful and increase valdity
* researcher may lose objectivitity as may indeifity with the participants too strongly
* participant behaviour may change if they figure out they are being observed
define non participant observation and evaluate
researcher observes from a distance and is not apart of the group
* researcher can be more objective as do not identify as strongly with the group
* open to observer bias
* may loose some valuable insight
ev
define structured observations and evaluate
researcher quantifies what they are observing using predetermined list of behaviour and sampling methods
* easier as more systematic
* qualitative data is collected which is easy to analyse and compare
* not much depth of detail
* difficukt to achive high inter observer reliability - filling predetermined list is subjective
define and evaulate case studies
detailed study into the life of a person = qaulitative data
eg : HM memory - different types of long term memory
- depth insight
- forms basis for future research
- can understand unusal behaviour that otherwise would be unethical or impractical
- not generalisable to wider population
- varaious interviewer biases - social desirability bias and interpretative biasis
- time consuming and difficult to replicate
difference between questionaires and interviews
questionaire asses persons thoughts or experiences through a number of different written questions
interviews live encouter with a set of questions is asked by an interviewer to asses their thoughts or experiences
define and evaulate open questions
question is phrased so particiapnts is free to answer however they like
collects qaulitative data
- rich is depth and detial
- senstive topics can be elaborated on
limitation - different to convert to statisictical data = difficult to analyse
define closed questions
questions that restrict to a fixed number of responses
quantitative data
eg: likert scale , rating scales , fixed choice scales
- easy to analyse and compare
limitation - lack of depth and detail
- can be limiting which can be frustrating for participants
evaulation of questionaires
strenghts:
* cost effective
* gathers large amount of data quickly
* researcher does not need to be present
* analyse is easy
* response can be anonymous
limitation
* difficult to know whether target population it was intended for answered ( online)
* long time to design
* difficult to asses validity as biases such as social desirability bias are presented
* particiapnt bias - age time gender
* response bias - simply agree with questions instead of putting effort into considering answer for each
construction of questionaires
- clarity
- avoid overuse of emotive lanaguage, double questions, double neagitve , leading questions
- squencing questions - easy to harder
- filler questions - eliminate demand characterisitics
- pilot study - suitability
define and evaulate structured interviews
set of predetermined questions asked
strenghts:
* standardisation is possivle
* easy replicable
* can make comparisons between particiapnts
limitation:
* interviewer bias - bofy langauge , listening skills
* socail desirability
* not being able to eloborate is frustrating
define and evaulate unstructured interviews
no predetermined questions - questions develop as interview goes on
stenght:
* alot of data = depth and insight
limitations
* skilled interviewers needed
* interviewer bias
* social desirabililty
* difficult to make comparisons
* analysis of data is difficult - irrelevant data
