Research methods Flashcards
Operationalisation of variables
making the variable as measurable as possible
extraneous variables
any variables that could potentially interfere with the iv other than the dv
confounding variables
varies systematically with the IV maning that we can’t tell if the change in the dv is due to the iv or the confounding variable
investigator effect
effect of the investigator behavior that may be percieved as revealing the purpose of the investigation to the participant
standardisation
using exactly the same formalised procedures for all participants
experimental design
different ways in which participants can be organised in relation to the experimental conditions
independent groups
two separate groups of participants experience two different conditions and the results would then be compared
repeated measures
all participants experience both conditions of the experiment
matched pairs
participants are paired together on a variable or variables relevant to the experiment and both do one condition each
random allocation
an attempt to control for participant variables ensuring that each participant has the same chance of being put in either condition as the other
counterbalancing
control for the effect order in a repeated measures design : half experience in one order then the other half experience it the opposite way.
lab experiment s+w
+high control over extraneous variables creating high internal validity
+replication is more possible due to a high level of control creating a higher validity
-may lack generalisability as the environment may be artificial which could cause demand characteristics
field experiment
experiment which takes place in a natural setting within which the researcher manipulates the iv
field exp s+w
+higher mundane realism as environment is natural creating higher external validity
-loss of control of confounding and extraneous variables
-also ethical issues with privacy
natural experiment
experiment where the change of iv is not brought about by the researcher and is naturally occurring
natural exp s+w
+provide opportunities for research
+high external validity as they involve study of real-world issues
-naturally occurring event may only happen very rarely which limits the generalisability
quasi experiment
iv has an existing difference between people eg. age, gender and so iv cannot be changed
quasi exp s+w
+often carried out under controlled conditions therefore share some strengths of a lab experiment
-iv is not deliberately changed and therefore we cannot claim that the iv has caused any observed change.
population
a group of people who are the center of the researchers focus
sample
often representative of a target population
random sample
all members have an equal chance of being selected
systematic sample
when every nth member of the target population is selected
stratified sample
the composition of the sample reflects the proportions of people in certain subgroups within the target population
opportunity sample
selecting anyone who is available and willing
volunteer sample
selecting themselves to be part of the sample
s+w of random sample
+potentially unbiased which enhances internal validity
-difficult and time consuming to conduct and complete list of the target population may be hard to obtain
s+w of systematic sample
+objective
-method is time-consuming and participants may refuse to take part
s+w stratified sampling
+representative as its designed to represent and so generalization of findings may be possible
-cannot reflect all ways that people are different
s+w of opportunity sampling
+convenient and less costly
-unrepresentative of target population and and may involve researcher bias
s+w of volunteer sampling
+easy and requires minimal effort from researcher and so is less time consuming
-volunteer bias
informed consent
making participants aware of the aims of the research
deception
deliberately withholding or misleading information from participants at any point of the experiment
protection from harm
protection from physical and psychological harm
privacy and confidentiality
participants have the right to control information about themselves
BPS code of conduct
includes ethical guidelines
dealing with informed consent
participants should be issued with a consent letter
dealing with deception and protection from harm
participants should be given a full debrief where they understand the aims of the study and any details that they weren’t given during the study
dealing with confidentiality
personal details must be protected
pilot studies
small-scale version of the investigation that takes place before the real investigation making sure that the procedure works
single-blind procedure
any info that might create expectations is not revealed until the end to control confounding and extraneous variables
double blind procedure
neither participants or the researcher is aware of the aims of the investigation - often important in drug trials
naturalistic and controlled observations
naturalistic observations take place in setting or context that target behavior would usually occur
controlled observation take place when there is control over variables
covert and overt observation
covert - participants are unaware that they are the focus of the study and their behavior is observed in secret
overt - participants know that their behavior is being observed
participant and non-participant observations
participant - observer becomes part of the group that they are observing
non-participant - researcher remains separate from those they are studying
eval of observations
+useful as they give special insight into behavior
-observer bias as interpretation of situation may be affected by their expectations
-cannot demonstrate causal relationships
eval of naturalistic and controlled observations
+tend to have high external validity as findings can be generalised to every day life
-lack of control over research situation could make a replication difficult with many uncontrolled confounding and extraneous variables
eval on covert and overt observations
+covert obs removes chance of demand characteristics increasing the internal validity of the observation
-covert obs also creates ethical questioning as some people may not wish to be observed
+overt obs may be more socially acceptable but the knowledge that they are being watched may have a significant influence.
eval of participant and non-participant observation
+researcher experiences the situation as the participants do giving them a better insight increasing the external validity
-however they may come to identify strongly with the group leading to objectivityi
inter-observer reliability
to make data recording more objective, observations should be carried out by at least two researchers and then checked for consistency.
ways of recording data
unstructured observation - writing down everything they see and tends to be reach with detail
structured observation - simplified targer behaviors which will become main focus of the investigation
behavioral categories
structured record of what the researcher sees
sampling methods
continuous recording - all instances of a target behavior is recorded
event sampling - counting the number of times a particular behavior occurs in a target individual or group
time sampling - recording behavior within a pre-established time frame
eval of structured vs unstructured
structured
+quantitative data meaning that it easier to be processed
unstructured
-mostly qualitative making it more difficult to analyse
+richer and greater in detail
eval of behavioral categories
+can make data more more structured and objective
questionaires
a set of written questions used to assess a persons thoughts and or experiences
common type of self-report technique
open questions - does not have a fixed range of answers and so often produce more qualitative data
closed questions - offers a fixed number of responses
offers more qualitative data
interviews
structured - pre-determined set of questions that are asked in a fixed order
unstructured - more like a conversation with no set questions
semi-structured - many interviews fall between the two types above, lists of questions but also free to deter from them.
eval of questionaire
+cost-effective and can offer large amounts of data quickly
+can be filled out without the researcher being present which reduced the effort involved
-responses may not always be truthful through social desirability bias or demand characteristics
-often produce a response bias where participants always respond in a similar way due to filling out the form too quickly
eval of interviews
structured interviews
+straightforward to replicate due to the standardized format
-not possible for interviewers to deviate from their questions which limits the richness of data collected as well as unexpected information
unstructured interview
+more flexibility and likelihood of gaining insight
-interviewer bias possible
likert scale
respondent indicates their agreement or disagreement with a statement using a scale of usually 5 points with the scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree
rating scales
respondents identify a value that represents their strength or feeling
fixed-choice option
includes a list of possible options and respondents are required to indicate those that apply to them
writing good questions
overuse of jargon - technical terms that are only familiar to those within a specialized field
emotive language and leading questions
double-barrelled questions and double negatives -
correlation
a mathematical technique in which a researcher investigates an association between two variables, called co-variables
co-variables
variables investigated within a correlation, for example height and weight
referred to as independent and dependent variables
eval of correlations
+preliminary tool for research providing a quantifiable measure of how to variables are related
+relatively quick and economical to carry out
-cannot demonstrate cause and effect between variables meaning we don’t know which variable is causing the other to change
-
qualitative data
expressed in words and is non-numerical
quantitative data
expressed numerically
primary data
information that has been obtained first-hand by a researcher for the purpose of the research project
secondary data
info that has already been collected by someone else and so pre-dates the current research project
eval of qualitative data
+offers much more richness and detail which often adds external validity
-often difficult to analyse and rely on subjective interpretations that may be subject to bias
eval of quantitative data
+relatively simple to analyse therefore comparisons can easily be drawn
-much more narrow in meaning and may fail to represent real life.
eval of primary data
+fits the job as the data is authentic
- requires time and effort on the part of the researcher
eval of secondary data
+may be inexpensive and easily accessed
-substantial variation of quality and accuracy of the data which may lower the validity
peer review
assessment of scientific work by others who are specialists in the same field
eval of peer review
anonymity - honest appraisal
publication bias - prefer to publish positive results which could mean that research that doesn’t reach criteria is ignored or disregarded
burying groundbreaking research - may suppress opposition to mainstream theories
