Research Methods Flashcards
Students should demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the following research methods, scientific processes and techniques of data handling and analysis, be familiar with their use and be aware of their strengths and limitations:
Define the “aim” of a study
The area of research that you are interested in studying
- Purpose of the study
- “To investigate…”
Define the “hypothesis” of a study & define the different types of hypothesis
Prediction of the experiment’s results
- Written in the future tense (i.e. there will be…)
Alternative hypothesis: Predicting a difference/correlation
Directional hypothesis: Predicts specific DIRECTION of results (increase or decrease)
Non-directional hypothesis: Predicts a difference/correlation but does NOT include a specific direction
Null hypothesis: Predicting that there will be NO DIFFERENCE
Outline the different variables
Independent variables are MANIPULATED
Dependent variables are MEASURED
- In order to establish cause and effect, all variables must be OPERATIONALISED, otherwise results cannot be compared as everyone has different ideas of sizes of amounts
Nuisance variables:
Extraneous variables - UNPREDICTED variables which effect EVERY PARTICIPANT in the same way so the impact on the DV is LESS SERIOUS
Confounding variables - UNPREDICTED variables which effect only SOME PARTICPANTS so the impact on the DV is (MORE) SERIOUS
Examples:
Demand characteristics - The participants GUESS THE AIM of the experiment and CHANGE BEHAVIOUR (either to support or sabotage the study)
Investigator effects - The verbal and non-verbal behaviours of the PSYCHOLOGIST which INFLUENCE the participants’ behaviour
How can nuisance variables be controlled for?
Pilot studies: Small TRIAL RUN study before the full experiment; used to IDENTIFY NUISANCE variables so they can be FIXED before the actual study - saving on TIME and MONEY
Control groups: Not exposed to the manipulation of the IV; provide a COMPARISON (“before”) data set
Single blind trials: PARTICIPANTS are not told the AIM - reduces DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
Double blind trials: Participant AND research unaware of AIM (3rd party researcher who is aware carries out the study) - reduces INVESTIGATOR EFFECTS
Randomisation: Use of CHANCE to decide which participants take part in which group
- E.g. using a random online generator, pulling names out of a hat
Standardisation: Keep all aspects of the experiment the SAME for all participants
- E.g. the room used, time of arrival, instructions read, materials used
What is reliability (and inter-rater reliability) and how is it measured?
Reliability means CONSISTENCY
Measured using REPEATED studies to see whether results are SIMILAR
Inter-rater reliability: Consistency between TWO OR MORE psychologists, 80% agreement needed (if it is under 80%, there is no inter-rater reliability)
What is validity?
Validity means ACCURACY (i.e. are the results truthful)
Internal validity: How well CONTROLLED the experiment is
External validity: How REALISTIC the experiment is (mundane realism/task realism)
- Ecological validity: Is the setting relevant in everyday life?
- Temporal validity: Is the time period still relevant today?
- Population validity: Is the sample representative of people (in everyday life)?
Define experimental design and outline and evaluate the different types of experimental design
The way in which we allocate participants to different groups/conditions
Independent groups: Group A and B in SEPARATE conditions
- Strength: No order effects (boredom, fatigue) = Less likely to guess the aim
- Weakness: Individual differences = Strangers cannot be fairly compared (different ages, IQ, etc)
Repeated measures: ONE group experience ALL conditions
- Strength: No individual differences
- Order effects (boredom, fatigue)
Matched pairs: Participants are matched, then SPLIT into different groups/conditions to compare them more accurately (as they are put into conditions where the people are similar in some way)
- Strength: A more fair comparison (individual differences are balanced out)
- Weakness: Time consuming and costly (hard to do as there are too many traits)
What is sampling? Outline and evaluate the different types of sampling
How you select people from the target population to be participants in your sample
Opportunity: Selecting people who are AVAILABLE and convenient to the researcher (friends, family, public spaces)
- Strength: Quick and easy, cheap
- Weakness: Most biased as the researcher chooses who to ask and all from the same area
Random: Using CHANCE to select participants - all names from target population go into a hat/generator
- Strength: Less bias = More representative = Can be generalised
- Weakness: Time consuming as it is difficult to identify everyone in the target population
Volunteer: Researcher will ADVERTISE the study and people will contact them
- Strength: Quick and easy, cheap, less bias
- Weakness: Only certain ‘types’ of people will volunteer - more extroverted, confident people
Systematic: Selecting EVERY NTH from target population
- Strength: Easy to do, less biased
- Weakness: Larger target population = More difficult and time consuming
Stratified: Identify the STRATA (sub-groups), then work out proportional RATIOS of groups to each other, then select participants randomly from each sub-group
- Strength: Most representative, least biased, best to generalise
- Weakness: Most difficult to do, time consuming
Define an experiment. Outline and evaluate the different types of experiment/experimental methods
Experiment: Difference between IV and DV, IV is directly manipulated, ‘cause and effect’
Laboratory experiment: Highly controlled, Artificial environment, IV is manipulated, DV is measured
- Strength: Control of nuisance variables = High internal validity = Can establish ‘cause and effect’
- Weakness: Artificial environment = Low ecological validity = Lacks mundane realism = Cannot be applied/generalised to the real world
Field experiment: Natural environment where the participants would usually be, IV is manipulated, DV is measured
- Strength: Real life setting = Can generalise to real world = High ecological validity
- Weakness: Cannot control for nuisance variables = Low internal validity
Natural experiment: Societal world (e.g. war) or weather event (e.g. hurricane), IV is NOT manipulated, DV is measured
- Strength: Researcher does not manipulate IV = More ethical
- Weakness: No control over nuisance variables = Impossible to establish ‘cause and effect’
Quasi experiment: Participant trait (illness, talent), IV is NOT manipulated, DV is measured
- Strength: Researcher does not manipulate IV = More ethical
- Weakness: No control over nuisance variables = Impossible to establish ‘cause and effect’
Outline and evaluate the types of observation/observational techniques
Naturalistic observation: Observation in the setting the behaviour would normally occur
- Strength: High external validity
- Weakness: Lacks control of situation = Uncontrolled extraneous variables = Cannot replicate
Controlled observation: Variables are managed/controlled
- Strength: Less extraneous variables = Easier to replicate
- Weakness: Low external validity = Findings cannot be applied to real world settings
Covert observation: Behaviour is watched and recorded without consent
- Strength: Ensures all behaviour will be natural
- Weakness: Ethics are questioned
Overt observation: Behaviour is watched and recorded with consent
- Strength: More ethically acceptable
- Weakness: Knowledge of being observed may influence behaviour - The observer effect
Participant observation: Researcher becomes a member of the study
- Strength: Validity increased (The researcher is a direct participant in the study)
- Weakness: May lose objectivity - “going native” (The researcher’s results may be biased as they become a member of the group)
Non-participant observation: Researcher is separate from the group being studied
- Strength: Results are more objective
- Weakness: May lose valuable insight
Define the ‘observer effect’
Individuals change their behaviour because they know they are being observed
Define ‘observer bias’
When a researcher’s expectations/opinions influence what they record
Define ‘behavioural categories’
Observations which need to be operationalised (precisely defined and made measurable)
Outline the two sampling methods
Event sampling: Tallying/counting the number of times a behavioural category is seen
Time sampling: Tallying behaviour at a set interval/time frame
- Nothing outside of the interval is recorded
Outline and evaluate self-report techniques
Self-report techniques:
- Strength: Give you the person’s own perspective
- Weakness: Results may be inaccurate due to social desirability bias (try to look better than they really are to be socially accepted)
Questionnaires: Pre-set list of written questions used to assess the DV
- Strength: Completed without the researcher present reduces effort involved; cost effective (gather larger amount of data quickly), statistical analysis available
- Weakness: The answer choices provided may not be an accurate reflection of how the participants actually feel; social desirability bias can lead people to respond in a way that makes them look better than they really are; response bias as questions may be misread
Interviews: Face to face interaction between an interviewer and an interviewee
Structured interview: Pre-determined set of questions in a fixed order
- Strength: Easy to replicate due to standardised format
- Weakness: Interviewer cannot deviate from the topic or elaborate points
Unstructured interview: No set questions; free flowing interaction
- Strength: Can follow up points to gain deeper insight = Much more flexibility = High construct validity (detail)
- Weakness: Drawing conclusions may be difficult as there is more irrelevant information; social desirability bias
Define the different types of closed questions
Likert scales: Respondent indicates their agreement on a scale of usually 5 points (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree)
Rating scales: Indicates their feeling about the topic (e.g. 1 = very entertaining, 5 = not at all entertaining - put yourself where you see fit on that scale)
Fixed choice: List of possible options, select all that apply to them
Outline and evaluate open and closed questions
Open questions: Provides qualitative data (language based)
- Strength: More detailed responses = High construct validity
-Weakness: Long and difficult as responses differ; unable to replicate to test reliability
Closed questions: Provides quantitative data (numerical)
- Strength: Easy to quantify (analysis = quick and easy); easy to replicate to test for reliability
- Weakness: Less detailed response = Lower construct validity
What effects the success of interviews or questionnaires? (in terms of the way that the questions are written)
Overuse of jargon: Using technical terms in questions only familiar to those specialised in the field/area
Emotive language: The author’s attitude is presented through the words and phrases used in the question
Leading questions: Guides the respondent towards a particular, desired answer
Double-barrelled questions: Contain two questions in one (may agree with only one half of the question)
Double negatives: “I am not unhappy with my job” could simply be said as “I am happy with my job”
Define correlations and the different types of correlations
Correlation: Relationship between two existing continuous variables (co-variables)
Positive correlation: As one variable increases so does the other
Negative correlation: As one co-variable increases the other decreases
Zero correlation: There is no relationship between the co-variables
Define correlation coefficient
Calculate how strong the relationship between two co-variables is
-1 = strong negative, (-) 0 = weak negative
+1 = strong positive, (+) 0 =weak positive
What is the difference between an experiment and a correlation?
Experiments look for a difference between an IV and a DV
Correlations simply look for a relationship between two existing co-variables
- There is no manipulation of the IV so we cannot establish cause and effect
Evaluate correlations (strengths and weaknesses)
Strengths:
- More ethical way of studying behaviour as IV is NOT manipulated
- Quantifiable measure of how two variables are related
- Assess possible patterns before experimental study
- Quantitative data = easy analysis
- Less time/money consuming as pre-existing secondary research can be used
Weaknesses:
- Does not tell us why variables are related –> Correlation is not equal causation so it is not scientific (less valid)
- Cannot establish cause and effect because we do not know which variable causes the other to change
- Third variable problem –> two variables are influenced by an unseen third variable, leading to misleading interpretations
- Lack of control of variables = Hard to replicate = Reliability is unknown
Outline the meta analysis
- Combination of results from existing studies to produce effect size
- Overall ‘effect size’ is the size of IV’s effect on the DV
- Effect size 5% = You are allowed 5% wrong (extraneous variables), i.e. the change in DV was due to less than 5% chance
- Establish cause and effect
Outline and evaluate the different types of data
Qualitative: Words, thoughts, feelings, opinions; interpretation of language from interview or unstructured observation
- Strength: High construct validity (detail)
- Weakness: Difficult to replicate and analyse; time consuming to collect
Quantitative: Numerical; gather in form of individual scores; open to be analysed statistically; can be conversted to graphs
- Strength: Standardised responses = easier analysis (descriptive statistics); easily replicable
- Weakness: Lacks construct validity (less detail)
Primary: Original data collected specifically for the purpose of the investigation; first hand from participants
- Strength: High quality assurance (conducted yourself)
- Weakness: High cost of time and money (conducted yourself)
Secondary: Collected by someone else; already exists before investigation begins; already been subject to statistical testing (significance is known)
- Strength: Low cost of time and money
- Weakness: Low quality assurance (may not meet your standard or aim)