research methods Flashcards
experimental method
involved the manipulation of an IV to measure the effect on the DV
evaluation of experimental method
Strength: provides scientific basis which can be falsified
Limitation: risk of confounding variables
aim
a general statement of what the researcher intends to investigate
hypothesis
a clear, precise, testable statement that states the relationship between the variables to be investigated
directional hypothesis
states the direction of the difference or relationship between the co-variables
non-directional hypothesis
doesn’t state the direction of the difference or relationship between the variables
variables
any ‘thing’ that can vary or change within an investigation
IV and DV - used in experiments to determine if changes to one result in changes to another
independent variable (IV)
the part of the experimental situation that is manipulated by the researcher or changes naturally
effect on DV measured
dependent variable (DV)
the variable that is measured by the researcher
any effect should be caused by the IV
operationalisation
clearly defining variables in terms of how they can be measured
extraneous variable
any variable, other than the IV, that may affect the DV if not control
don’t vary systematically with the IV
confounding variables
type of extraneous variable, which does vary systematically with the IV
- makes it difficult to know what caused the change to the DV
demand characteristics
any cue from the researcher or situation that may be interpreted by participants as revealing the purpose of the investigation
participant reactivity
result of demand characteristics
an EV in which the participant changes their behaviour with the research situation
investigator effects
any effect of the investigator’s behaviour on the research outcome (conscious or unconscious)
e.g design of the study, selection of participants, interaction with participants
randomisation
the use of chance methods to control for the effect of bias
standardisation
using the same formalised procedures and instructions for all participants in the study
experimental design
the different ways in which participants can be organised in relation to experimental conditions
independent groups design
participants are allocated to different groups
each group represents a different experimental condition
evaluation of independent groups design
Strength:
- order effects aren’t a problem
- less risk of demand characteristics
Limitation:
- participant variables
- less economical
repeated measures design
all participants take part in all conditions of the experiment
evaluation of repeated measures design
strength
- participant variables controlled
limitation
- order effects
- demand characteristics
matched pairs design
pairs of participants are matched on a variable that may affect the DV
one member of each pair is assigned to condition A, and the other to condition B
evaluation of matched pairs design
strength:
- order effects and demand characteristics less of a problem
limitation:
- participants can never be matched exactly
- less economical
random allocation
an attempt to control for participant variables in an independent groups design
ensures each participant has the same chance of being in one condition as any other
evaluation of random allocation
strength:
- reduces risk of participant variables and investigator effects
limitation:
- can’t fix the fact independent groups is less economical
counterbalancing
an attempt to control for order effects in a repeated measures design
half participant experience the conditions in one order, the other half experiencing them in the opposite order
evaluation of counterbalancing
strength:
- reduces issue of order effects
limitation:
- demand characteristics
lab experiment
an experiment that takes place in a controlled environment within which the researcher manipulated the IV and records the effect on the DV
evaluation of lab experiment
strength:
- high control - clear causation
- replication easier - increases validity
limitation
- low external validity
- demand characteristics
- low mundane realism
field experiment
takes place in a natural setting
researcher manipulates IV and records effect on DV
evaluation of field experiment
strength:
- high mundane realism and external validity
limitation:
- loss of control on CVs and EVs
- ethical issues
natural experiment
the change in the IV is not bright about by the researcher as it naturally occurs
researcher records effect on DV
evaluation of natural experiment
strength:
- provide opportunities for research that wouldn’t have been undertaken otherwise
- high external validity
limitation:
- opportunity for research may be rare
- participants aren’t randomly allocated
quasi-experiment
IV is pre-determined and pre-existing, so researcher has no control over it
technically not an experiment
evaluation of quasi-experiment
strength:
- high external validity
limitation:
- participants aren’t randomly allocated
- IV not manipulated by researcher, so causation is unclear
target population
the large group of people that a researcher is interested in studying
sample group
a group of people who take part in a research investigation
drawn from the target population and presumed to be representative of it
sampling technique
method used to select people from the target population
random sampling
all members of the target population have an equal chance of being selected
e.g lottery method
evaluation of random sampling
strength:
- unbiased
- CVs and TVs should be equally divided between groups - higher internal validity
limitation:
- time-consuming
- may not be representative
- participants may refuse
systematic sampling
every nth member of the target population is selected
sampling frame produced and a sampling system nominated to select (can be chosen using randomisation)
evaluation of systematic sampling
strength:
- researcher has no influence over who is chosen
limitation:
- time-consuming
- participants may refuse
stratified sampling
form of sampling in which composition of sample is representative of strata in target population
different strata are identified and the proportions calculated
then random sampling is used to select participants for each stratum
evaluation of stratified sampling
strength:
- representative, improves generalisability
limitation:
- can’t always fully reflect all the ways in which people are different
opportunity sampling
researchers select anyone willing and available
evaluation of opportunity sampling
strength:
- convenient and less costly
limitation:
- unrepresentative
- researcher bias
volunteer sampling
participants select themselves to take part
researcher may use an advert in a newspaper to attract volunteers
evaluation of volunteer sampling
strength:
- minimal input from researcher, so less time-consuming
- participants are more engaged
limitation:
- may attract a certain ‘profile’ - could affect generalisation
bias
to influence, typically in an unfair direction
in the context of sampling, it means certain groups may be over- or under-represented in the sample, which limited generalisability
representative generalisation
the extent to which findings and conclusions from a study can be broadly applied to the population
possible if the sample of participants is representative of the target population
ethical issues
arise when a conflict exists between the rights of participants and goal of research to produce authentic, valid, and worthwhile data
informed consent
making the participants aware of the aims of the research, the procedures, their rights, and what the data is used for
participants can then make an informed judgement whether or not to take part
deception
deliberately misleading or withholding information form participants at any stage of the investigation
protection from harm
participants shouldn’t be placed at any more risk than they would be in their daily lives and should be protected from physical and psychological harm
privacy and confidentiality
participants have the right to control information about themselves
BPS code of ethics
a quasi-legal document produced by the BPS that instructs psychologists in the UK about what behaviour is and isn’t acceptable when dealing with participants
briefing
participants should be provided with a consent letter and form detailing all relevant information that might affect their decision to participate
deals with informed consent
debriefing
at the end of the study, participants should be told the true aims and any details they were not provided during the study
deals with deception
right to withdraw or withhold data
participants should be told what their data will be used for and given the right to withdraw and withhold data
deals with deception and privacy and confidentiality
counselling
participants should be offered counselling is they have experienced stress of embarrassment during the investigation
deals with protection from harm
anonymity
if personal details are held they must be protected, but normally no personal details are recorded
deals with privacy and confidentiality
pilot study
a small-scale version of an investigation that takes place before the real investigation to check that everything words and to allow the researcher to make changes if necessary
single-blind procedure
any information that might create expectations is not revealed until the end of the study
double-blind procedure
neither the participants not the researcher who conducts the study know the aims of the investigation
naturalistic observation
watching and recording behaviour in the setting in which it would normally occur
evaluation of naturalistic observation
strength
- high external validity
limitation
- replication is difficult
- CVs and EVs
controlled observation
watching and recording behaviour within a structured environment
evaluation of controlled observation
strength
- less risk of CVs or EVs
limitation
- less generalisable
covert observation
participants’ behaviour is watched and recorded without their knowledge or consent
evaluation of covert observation
strength
- removes issue of demand characteristics
limitation
- ethical issues
overt observation
participants’ behaviour is watched and recorded with their knowledge and consent
evaluation of overt observation
strength
- less ethical issues
limitation
- demand characteristics
participant observation
the researcher becomes a member of the group whose behaviour they’re watching and recording
evaluation of participant observation
strength
- provides researcher with increased insight
limitation
- lose objectivity
non-participant observation
the researcher remains outside of the group whose behaviour they are watching and recording
evaluation of non-participant observation
strength
- remain objective
limitation
- lose valuable insight
behavioural categories
when a target behaviour is broken up into components that are observable and measurable
evaluation of behavioural categories
strength
- makes data collection more structures and objective
limitation
- difficulties (mustn’t require further interpretation, all possible forms of target behaviour should be included, categories shouldn’t overlap)
event sampling
a target behaviour or event is established then the researcher records it every time it occurs
evaluation of event sampling
strength
- useful when the target behaviour is infrequent
limitation
- if the target behaviour it too complex, the observer may overlook important details
time sampling
a target individual or group is established then the researcher records their behaviour in a fixed time frame
evaluation of time sampling
strength
- effective in reducing the number of observations to be made
limitation
- may not be representative of the whole observation
self-report technique
any method in which a person is asked to state or explain their own feelings/behaviours/etc related to a given topic
evaluation of self-report technique
strength
- researcher gains insight only the participant can provide
limitation
- social desirability bias
questionnaire
a set of written questions used to assess a person’s thoughts/experiences
evaluation of questionnaire
strength
- cost-effective
- data usually easy to analyse
limitation
- social desirability bias
- response bias
interview
a ‘live’ encounter where one person asks a set of questions to assess an interviewee’s thoughts/experiences
structured interview
made up of a predetermined set of questions
evaluation of structured interview
strength
- easily replicated
limitation
- detail of data limited
- social desirability bias
unstructured interview
no set questions, there is a general aim of a certain topic being discussed, but the interaction is free-flowing
evaluation of unstructured interview
strength
- gain more insight and detail
limitation
- increased risk of interviewer bias
- analysis of data less straightforward
- social desirability bias
semi-structured interview
a list of questions has been established but interviews can also ask follow-up questions based on answers from interviewee
open questions
questions for which there is no fixed choice response and respondents can answer in any way they wish
evaluation of open questions
strength
- information gathered is more detailed
limitation
- analysis is difficult
closed questions
questioned for which there is a fixed choice of responses determined by question setter
evaluation of closed questions
strength
- analysis of data is easier
limitation
- less detailed answers
likert scale
respondent indicated their agreement using a scale of points
rating scale
respondents identify a value that represents their strength of feeling about a particular topic
fixed-choice option
includes a list of possible options and respondents are required to indicate those that apply to them
correlation
a mathematical technique in which a researcher investigates an association between two co-variables
co-variables
the variables investigated within a correlation
not referred to as IV and DV because a correlation investigates association rather than a cause-and-effect relationship
positive correlation
as one co-variable increases so does the other
negative correlation
as one co-variable increases the other decreases
zero correlation
no relationship between the co-variables
qualitative data
data that is expressed in words, although it can be converted to numbers for the purpose of analysis
evaluation of qualitative data
strength
- gives more richness of data (greater external validity)
limitation
- difficult to analyse, conclusions rely on su objective interpretation which can lead to bias
quantitative data
data that can be counted, usually given in numbers
evaluation of quantitative data
strength
- simple to analyse
- more objective, less open to bias
limitation
- narrow in meaning and detail (lower external validity)
primary data
information obtained first-hand by the researcher for the purposes of the research project
often gathered directly from participants
evaluation of primary data
strength
- specifically targets the aims of the study
limitation
- requires time and effort
secondary data
information that has already been collected by someone else and so pre-dates the current research project
could include the work of other psychologists or government statistics
evaluation of secondary data
strength
- inexpensive and requires minimal effort
limitation
- variation in quality and accuracy
- may not exactly match researcher’s objectives (challenges validity of conclusions)
meta-analysis
the process of combining the findings from a number of studies on a particular topic.
the aim is to produce an overall statistical conclusion based on a range of studies
evaluation of meta-analysis
strength
- results can be generalised across larger populations
limitation
- prone to publication bias
measures of central tendency
the general term for any measure of the average value in set of data
mean
average calculated by adding up all the values in a set of data and dividing by the number of values
evaluation of mean
strength
- representative of the whole data set
limitation
- easily distorted by extreme values
median
the central value in a set of data when values are arranged from lowest to highest
evaluation of median
strength
- not affected by extreme results
- easy to calculate
limitation
- ignores values of higher and lower numbers, which may be important
mode
the most frequently occurring value in a set of data
evaluation of mode
strength
- easy to calculate
- only method suitable for nominal data
limitation
- not always representative of the whole data set
measures of dispersion
the general term for any measure of the spread or variation in a set of scores
range
simple calculation of the dispersion in a set of scores, calculated by subtracting the smallest value from the largest value and adding 1 as a mathematical correction
evaluation of range
strength
- easy to calculate
limitation
- isn’t representative of the whole data set
- doesn’t indicate whether the numbers are closely grouped or spread out
standard deviation
a sophisticated measure of dispersion in a set of scores
tells us by how much, on average, each score deviated from the mean
evaluation of standard deviation
strength
- more precise measure of dispersion as it includes all values
limitation
- can be distorted by extreme values
scattergram
a type of graph that represents the strength and direction of the relationship between co-variables in a correlational analysis
bar chart
a type of graph in which the frequency of each variable is represented by the height of the bars
histogram
a type of graph which shows frequency but, unlike a bar chart, the area represents frequency, not just the height
normal distribution
a symmetrical spread of frequency data that forms a bell-shaped pattern
the mean, median, and mode are all located at the highest point
skewed distribution
a spread of frequency data that is not symmetrical, where the data clusters to one end
positive skew
a type of frequency distribution in which the long tail is on the positive side of the peak and most of the distribution is concentrated on the left
negative skew
a type of frequency distribution in which the long tail is on the negative side of the peak and most of the distribution is concentrated on the right
peer review
the assessment of scientific work by others who are specialists in the same field, to ensure that any research intended for publication is of high quality
evaluation of peer review
strength
- anonymity can produce a more honest appraisal
limitation
- anonymity can be used to criticise rival researchers
- publication bias - burying groundbreaking research
psychology and the economy
implications for the role of the father - both parents are equally capable of providing for the family
allows many people to manage their condition effectively so they can return to work
correlation coefficient
a number between -1 and +1 that represents the direction and strength of a relationship between co-variables
case study
an in-depth investigation, description and analysis of a single individual or group
evaluation of case study
strength
- in-depth detail
limitation
- not generalisable
content analysis
a research technique that enables the indirect study of behaviour by examining communications that people produce (texts, TV, film, etc)
turn qualitative data into quantitative datable using coding units
evaluation of content analysis
strength
- get around ethical issues as content already exists in public domain
- external validity
limitation
- studied indirectly and out of context
- only describes the data, cannot extract deeper meaning
coding
the stage of a content analysis in which the content is analysed by identifying each instance of the chosen categories
thematic analysis
a qualitative approach to analysis that involves identifying implicit of explicit ideas within the data
themes will often emerge once the data has been coded
evaluation of thematic analysis
strength
- level of detail is maintained
limitation
- subjectivity in how information fits into categories
reliability
a measure of consistency
test-retest reliability
assessing the reliability of a psychological test or questionnaire by assessing the same person on two separate occasions
shows to what extent the test produces the same answers
inter-observer reliability
the extent to which there is agreement between two or more observers involved in an observation
it’s measured by correlating the observations of two or more observers
+0.8 or higher indicated high inter-observer reliability
validity
the extent to which an observed effect is genuine
face validity
whether a measure appears to measure what it is supposed to measure
concurrent validity
the extent to which a psychological measure related to an existing similar measure
ecological validity
the extent to which findings from a research study can be generalised to other settings and situations
a form of external validity
temporal validity
the extent to which findings from a research study can be generalised to other historical times and eras
a form of external validity
internal validity
the extent to which the researcher has measured what they intended to measure
external validity
the extent to which findings can be generalised beyond the research setting in which they were found
statistical tests
used in psychology to determine whether a significant difference or correlation exists
nominal data
data that fits into distinct categories
ordinal data
data that falls along a scale
interval data
a measurement taken on a scale, but the unit is equally sized and objective
sign test
test for difference
nominal data
related design
chi-squared
test for association
nominal data
mann-whitney
test for difference
ordinal data
related design
wilcoxon
test for difference
ordinal data
related design
spearman’s rho
test for correlation
ordinal data
Pearson’s r
test for correlation
interval data
related t-test
test for difference
interval data
related design
unrelated t-test
test for difference
interval data
unrelated design
probability
a measure of the likelihood that a particular event will occur where 0 indicated statistical impossibility and 1 statistical certainty
significance
a statistical term that tells us how sure we are that a difference or correlation exists
a ‘significant’ result means that the researcher can reject the null hypothesis
null hypothesis
predicts that a statistically significant effect or relationship won’t be found
the treatment that researchers are trying to disprove
alternative hypothesis
predicts a statistically significant effect of an IV on a DV
the statement the researchers are trying to prove
will be directional if theory of existing evidence argues a particular direction
critical value
when testing a hypothesis, the numerical boundary between acceptance and rejection of the null hypothesis
type 1 error
incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis
a false positive
type 2 error
the failure to reject a false null hypothesis
a false negative
abstract
a short summary of the key elements of the report
introduction
a look at past research on a similar topic
includes the aims and hypothesis of current investigation
method
a description of what the researcher(s) did, including design, sample, apparatus, procedure, ethics
results
a description of what the researchers found, including descriptive and inferential statistics
discussion
a consideration of what the results of a research study tell us in terms of psychological theory
references
list of sources that are referred to or quotes in the article and their full details
objectivity
all sources of personal biases are minimised so as not to distort or influence the research process
empirical method
scientific approaches that are based on the gathering of evidence though direct observation and experience
paradigms
a set of shared assumptions and agreed methods within a scientific discipline
paradigm shift
the result of a scientific revolution when there is a significant change in the dominant unifying theory within a scientific discipline
replicability
the extent to which scientific procedures and findings can be repeated by other researchers
falsifiability
the principles that a theory cannot be considered scientific unless it admits the possibility of being proven untrue
theory construction
the process of developing an explanation for the causes of behaviour by systematically gathering evidence and then organising this int a coherent account
hypothesis testing
a key feature of a theory is that is should produce statements which can then be tested
this is the only way a theory can be falsified
