Research methods: non-experimental Flashcards
controlled observation ao1
-conditions are manipulated by researcher
-can be carried out in a laboratory type situation (context)
controlled observation strength
-high in reliability as environment is controlled and standardised (context) so the observation can be easily repeated to check for consistent results, therefore gain more respect from other professionals and members of the public
controlled observation weakness
low in ecol. validity as takes place in artificial conditions (context) which does not reflect real life, difficult to generalise the findings to beyond the setting of the observation and lowers external validity
-demand characteristic (if older than 10) as ppts are more likely to know they are being watched (context)
define a naturalistic observation
-watching natural behaviour in a natural environment where the target behaviour would normally occur
-no manipulation of variables
naturalistic observation strength
DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS IF PPTS OVER THE AGE OF 10
Less prone to demand characteristics as people are less likely to know they are being watched (context) therefore they are unlikely to change their natural behaviour and are less likely to help or hinder the research increasing the internal validity of the observation
High ecological validity as the observation takes place in a natural setting (context) therefore easier to generalise the result (context) beyond the settings of the observation to other similar settings increasing the external validity of the research
naturalistic observation limitations
low in reliability as they are being observed in a natural environment (context) therefore difficult to replicate the observation in the exact same conditions to achieve consistent results
ethical issues of lack of informed consent as people may not be aware they are being observed due to being observed in their natural setting (context) therefore have no given their consent to take part .If they become aware they may wish to withdraw their data from the study.
define an overt observation
-ppts are aware their behaviour is being observed so will be aware of the purpose of the research
-observer is clearly visible to the ppts
overt observation strength
more ethically appropriate than covert as ppts know they are being observed (context) so the ppts can give consent for their data to be used
overt observation limitation
ONLY USE IF OLDER THAN 10
More prone to demand characteristics as ppts are more likely to know they are being watched (context) therefore ppts are likely to change their natural behaviour and may help or hinder the research based on the clues given off by the researcher.Therefore lowering the internal validity
define a covert observation
observations conducted without the knowledge of the ppts. This can be done through an observer being hidden
covert observation strength
ONLY USE IF 10 YEARS OLD
Less prone to demand characteristics as people are less likely to know they are being watched (context) therefore they are unlikely to change their natural behaviour and are less likely to help or hinder the research increasing the internal validity of the research
covert observation limitation
ethical issues of lack of informed consent as people may not be aware they are being observed due to being observed in a covert setting (context) therefore have no given their consent to take part. If they become aware they may wish to withdraw their data from the study.
Define a participant observation
the researcher is involved with the group
data collected whilst being part of a group
participant observation strength
observer can gain as in-depth understanding of the group’s behaviour as they are part of the group (context) and so will not miss important aspects eg. feelings and motivations (context). Therefore this increases the overall internal validity of the observation
participant observation limitations
researcher bias as the observer is part of the group (context). This decreases the objectivity as the researchers own thoughts and behaviours may impact the observation and therefore lower the internal validity
non-participant observation definition
researcher is not involved in the group
data collected from distance eg. video camera
non-participant observation strength
there is reduced chance of researcher bias as the observer is not part of the group (context). This increases the objectivity of the obs as the researcher’s own thoughts and behaviours are less likely to impact the obs increasing internal validity
non-participant observation limitation
less likely to gain an in-depth understanding of the group’s behaviour as they are not part of the group (context) and so may miss important aspects (context) therefore lowers the internal validity
two types of recording behaviour
event sampling
time sampling
event sampling AO1
-obs decides on specific behaviour cat (context)
-recorded every time they happen in a set period of time
time sampling AO1
-tallying behaviour in a set time interval eg. 2 mins
-in a hour there would be 30 tallies
strength of event sampling
-useful when behaviour happens infrequently
-as the ppts are watched over a period of time and the behaviour category is recorded every time it occurs
-so researchers are less likely to miss behaviours
-unlike time sampling where if the behaviour happens infrequently it is missed
limitation of event sampling
if the behaviour observed happens very often th observe may miss the behaviour as they cannot tally in time
-unlike time sampling in which the researcher only tallies at set time intervals and so is less likely to miss these behaviours
strength of time sampling
-reduces the amount the observers have to observe the beh. for
-as they only observe in set time intervals
-however as the researchers are only observing at set time intervals the behaviours tallied may not be representative of the obs as a whole
how to assess reliability of observations
- reliability of the obs can be checked by using two observers
- two observers would create and be trained on how to use behav. categories (context)
- two observers would then conduct the obs. separately and watch the same behaviour for the same amount of time (context)
- the tallies from the two observers should be compared and correlated using an app stats test
- a strong positive positive correlation of +0.8 shows high reliability
definition of reliability
ability to replicate the observation for consistent results
how to assess the validity of observation
face validity
concurrent validity
how to conduct face validity
independent psychologist in the same field seeing if a behaviour category (context) looks like measures what it claims to measure (context) at face value.If they say YES the obs is valid
how to conduct concurrent validity
a way of assessing validity by comparing the results of a new observation with the results from another similar pre-existing obs which has already been established for its validity. If the results from both obs. are similar then we can assume the test is valid. The correlation of two sets of results from an appropriate stats test should exceed +0.8
what is a self report (3m)
-ppts give info to the researcher to provide details on thoughts/feelings/behaviour
-involves a questionnaire or interview
-questions in the questionnaire can be open or closed
-questions in the interview can be structured or unstructured
strength of a questionnaire
tackle sensitive issues such as homosexuality (context) as ppts dats can remain anonymous by the researcher not asking for a name. PPts can be more honest and happier to disclose sensitive information when they are anonymous increasing internal validity
what is a questionnaire
-form part of surveys, which involves asking a large sample of people for information on a specific topic
-involves a pre-set list of written questions or items to which the ppt responds
-the purpose of the surveys is to get a good representation of the target pop. using a large sample-therefore making it able to generalise results to the rest of the population
strength of a questionnaire
-reduction of investigator effects
-as the researcher does not have to be present whilst the ppt completes the questionnaire.
-Therefore researcher’s response to the ppts answer is not visible and their characteristics will not influence the ppts answers (context)
strength of a questionnaire
-can be given to large quality of the people
-as the researcher does not have to be present when the ppts complete the questionnaire
-Increasing the generalisability of the findings (context)
limitations of a questionnaire
-lead to social desirability bias
-people may present themselves in the best possible light
-therefore lowering the internal validity of the research
-whereas in an interview the researcher is present which reduces the ppts social desirability as they may find it more difficult to lie face to face
-however this could be minimised by making the questionnaire anonymous
limitations of a questionnaire
-misinterpretation of questions
-eg. ppt may not understand a question and ca ask for clarification
-so not giving invalid/empty information
-also, researcher could misinterpret the the ppts answer and cannot ask for clarification
-lowering internal validity
open questions definition
ppts can answer using their own words
more detail
qualitative data meaning
data is non-numerical
provides detailed data with depth and human meaning
closed questions
ppts responses are fixed
eg. yes, no, rating scales
quantitative data meaning
data is in numerical form
yes and no are NOT quantitative
strength of open questions/qualitative data
provides in depth data for greater understanding of content
strength of open questions/qualitative data
provides in depth data for greater understanding of content
weakness of open questions/qualitative data
open to researcher bias as ppts responses will be open to subjective interpretation of the researcher
strength of closed questions /quantitative data
easier to analyse and collate the data
allowing comparisons to be made between groups of people
enabling conclusions to be made about data
weakness of closed questions/quantitative data
lacks depth into behaviour in question, lack validity
could be open to response bias as ppts reply in a similar way, lowering internal validity
what is an interview
method for asking questions in a face to face nature, over the phone or computer such as skype
can be structured or unstructured
structured interview AO1
-all of the questions are pre-set before the interview
-less likely to deviate from the topic
-every interviewee will be asked the same questions in the same order
-interviewer cannot ask any extra questions
structured interview strength
-all ppts get the same questions
-so able to compare responses and identify trends about (context)
-unlike unstructured where ppts get different questions, therefore it’s hard to make comparisons
structured interviews weakness
-research cannot deviate from the pre-set questions
-cannot follow up on new lines of enquiry
-this means they do not get a full understanding of behaviour (context)
-unlike in an unstructured interview where questions can be developed based on responses from previous questions
unstructured interviews AO1
-may contain a topic are for discussion but no set questions so each interviewee gets different questions
-the questions are based on the responses of the interviewee so the interviewer can discuss interesting points
-questions are more likely to be open
unstructured interview strength
-allows person to go into more depth
-able to gain fuller understanding of behaviour (context)
-unlike a structured where ppts can only answer a set list with no deviation
-increasing the internal validity of an unstructured interview
unstructured interview weakness
-hard to identify patterns and trends as all ppts asked different questions (context) making the responses harder to analyse and make comparisons between ppts unlike a structured where all ppts answer the same questions
-more difficult to replicate an unstructured interview as each ppt is asked diff questions (context) based upon their responses UNLIKE a structured interview which has a standardised set of questions and can be repeated many times. This lowers the reliability of an unstructured interview
Overall AO3 interview
-time consuming
-investigator effects
-clarification
investigator effects
-when the researcher’s behaviour either consciously or unconsciously influences the outcome of the research
-eg. gender or tone
Ways to assess reliability of self-report
- ppts are given a questionnaire/interview to complete
- same ppts given same questions after a time delay eg. two weeks
- compare the data on a scattergraph to describe the correlation
- then correlate the results from each questionnaire/interview
- a strong positive correlation of above +0.8 shows high reliability
how to assess the validity of a questionnaire/interview
face validity
concurrent validity
how to conduct face validity
independent psychologist in the same field seeing if the questions (context) looks like measures what it claims to measure (context) at face value. If they say YES the results is valid
how to conduct concurrent validity
a way of assessing validity by comparing the results of new questions with the results from another similar pre-existing questions which has already been established for its validity. If the results from both tests are similar then we can assume the test is valid. The correlation of two sets of results from an appropriate stats test should exceed +0.8
How can investigator effects be controlled
-train experimenters to use a neutral tone of voice
-ensure researcher is the same gender as the ppts
-provide a standardised script for the researchers to use so giving instructions in the same way
-blind/double blind
what is a correlation?
-shows a link/relationship between variables
-known as co-variables
-no IV and DV and no manipulation of var
types of correlation
-positive
-negative
-zero
what are the two strengths of correlations
strong
weak
what is meant by the term correlation coefficient?
tells us how strong or weak a correlation is
non-directional hypothesis
simply states that there will be a relationship between the co-variables, but not direction of the relationship
non-directional hypothesis writing frame
there will be a significant relationship between (operationalised co-variable 1) and (operationalised co-variable 2)
directional hypothesis
there will be a relationship and the direction of the relationship
directional hypothesis writing frame
there will be a significant positive or negative relationship between (operationalised co-variable 1) and (operationalised co-variable 2)
difference between correlation and an experiment
-in an experiment the researcher is looking for a difference between the conditions
-the researcher manipulates the IV
WHEREAS
-a correlation shows a relationship between two co-variables
-no manipulation between variables
define what is meant by a case study?
-an in-depth study conducted into one person or group
-can be over a long period of time
strengths of a case study
-case studies offer rich, detailed insights into unusual forms of behaviour
-that would otherwise be difficult to manipulate in an experimental setting eg. memory loss
-therefore increasing our understanding of complex behaviour
-case studies can generate further hypotheses for further study as a single anomaly found in a case study can lead to a revision of an entire theory
-increases scientific process of inquiry
case study weakness
low population validity as it is only conducted on one person (context). Making it difficult to generalise the findings to the target population (context) lowering the external validity
case studies often rely on retrospective data eg. personal accounts from indidiv. of past and/or family/friends. These accounts may be prone to inaccuracy and memory decay. Therefore lowering the internal validity of the case study
