research methods Flashcards
experimental method
manipulation of an IV to measure the effect on the DV
types of experiments
lab
natural
quasi
field
aim
general statement of what the researcher intends to investigate, purpose of study
hypothesis
clear, precise, testable statement that states the relationship between the variables to be investigated
directional hypothesis
states the direction of the difference or relationship
non-directional hypothesis
does not state the direction of difference or relationship
variables
any thing that can vary or change within an investigation
generally used in experiments to determine if changes in one thing result in changes to another
independent variable
some aspect of experimental situation that is manipulated by the researcher or changes naturally so the effect on DV can be measured
dependent variable
variable that is measured by the researcher
any effect on DV should be caused by the change in the IV
operationalisation
clearly defining variables that states how they can be measured
extraneous variables
any variable, other than the IV that may affect the DV if it is not controlled
EVs essentially the nuisance variables that do not vary systematically with the IV
confounding variables
a kind of EV but variables vary systematically with the IV
we cannot tell if any change in the DV is due to the IV or CV
demand characteristics
Features of a piece of research which allow the participants to work out its aim and/or
hypothesis. Participants may then change
their behaviour and so frustrate the aim of the research
investigator effects
any effect of the investigator’s behaviour (conscious/unconscious) on the research outcome
may include everything from the design of study to the selection of, and interaction with, participants during the research process
randomisation
the use of chance methods to control for the effects of bias when designing materials and deciding the order of experimental conditions
standardisation
using exactly the same formalised procedures and instructions for all participants in a research study
experimental designs
the different ways in which participants can be organised in relation to the experimental conditions
independent groups design
participants are allocated to different groups where each group represents one experimental condition
repeated measures
all participants take part in all conditions of the experiment
matched pairs design
pairs of participants are first matched on some variables that may affect the dependent variable
one member of the pair is assigned to condition A and the other to condition B
random allocation
an attempt to control for participant variables in an independent groups design which ensures that each participant has the same chance of being in one condition as any other
counterbalancing
an attempt to control for the impact of order effects in a repeated measures design
cons of repeated measures + how to fix
demand characteristics - randomisation
effects of order - counterbalancing
pros of repeated measure
no individual differences
no participant variables
less time consuming
cons of independent groups + how to fix
participant variables - change to matched pairs
more expensive
pros of independent groups design
eliminate order effects
less time consuming
cons of matched pairs
time consuming
more expensive
some individual differences
pros of matched pairs
control of individual diferences
pros of lab experiment
high control over CV + EV
replication is possible
cons of lab experiment
artificial
demand characteristics
low mundane realism
pros of field experiment
higher mundane realism than lab
participants unaware
cons of field experiment
loss of control over CV and EV
ethical issues
difficult to generalise
pros of natural experiment
provide opportunities for research that may not otherwise be undertaken for practical and ethical reasons
high external validity
cons of natural experiment
naturally occurring event may only happen very rarely
participants cant be randoly generalised
may be conducted in a lab
pros of quasi-experiment
carried out under controlled conditions
cons of quasi-experiment
cannot random allocate
IV is not deliberately changed by researcher
bias
when certain groups are over/under-represented within the sample selected
limits the extent to which generalisations can be made to the target population
generalisation
the extent to which findings and conclusions from a particular investigation can be broadly applied to the population
name the different types of sampling
random
systematic
stratified
opportunity
volunteer
random sampling
ppts have equal chance of being selected
systematic
every nth ppts
stratified
composition of sample reflects the proportions of people in certain subgroups within target population
opportunity
anyone who is willing and available
volunteer
participants selecting themselves
pros of random sampling
potentially unbiased
cons of random sampling
difficult and time consuming
participants refuse to take part
sample might still be unrepresentative
pros of systematic sampling
objective
cons of systematic sampling
time consuming
participants refuse to take part
unrepresentative
pros of stratified sampling
representative sample
cons of stratified sampling
complete representation of the target population is not possible
identified strata cannot reflect all the ways the people are different
pros of opportunity sampling
convenient
less time consuming
cons of opportunity sampling
unrepresentative
researcher bias
pros of volunteer sampling
easy
less time-consuming
participants more engaged
cons of volunteer sampling
demand characteristics
same personality type
name ethical issues
informed consent
deception
protection from harm
privacy and confidentiality
pilot studies
small-scale trial run of actual investigation
check procedures, materials, measuring scales
allow researcher to make changes or modifications
single-blind study
participants not told the aim
researcher knows
double-blind
both researcher and participants do not know the aim
types of observation techniques
naturalistic
controlled
covert
over
participant
non-participant
pros of naturalistic observation
high external validity
cons of naturalistic observation
lack of control over variables make replication hard
pros of controlled observation
control of variables
replication
cons of controlled observation
findings cannot be adapted to real life
pros of covert observation
participants unaware they are being watched
no demand characteristics
internal validity
cons of covert observation
ethics
pros of overt observation
more ethically acceptable
cons of overt observation
knowledge that participants have may act as a significant influence on their behaviour
pros of participants observation
give researchers increased insight into peoples lives
external validity
cons of participant observation
researcher may come to identify too strongly with those they are studying and lose objectivity
pros of non-participant
maintain objective psychological distance
less danger of them going naive
cons of non-participant
lose valuable insight
too far from people and behaviour
strengths of correlation
useful preliminary tool for research by assessing strength and direction of a relationship
quick and economical
secondary data can be used
limitation of correlation
lack of experimental manipulation and control within a correlation
can only tell us how variables are related but not why
third variable
misused misinterpreted
positively skewed
long tail on the right
negatively skewed
long tail on the left
what is a type 1 error
lenient
too much chance
false positive
falsely reject null
what is a type 2 error
strict
no room for chance
false negative
falsely accept null
