REVISION FOR METH TEST Flashcards
Stratified sampling advantages
Used when target pop of a study is really diverse
Sample takes into consideration the diversity of the pop and attempts to overcome this problem by drawing samples from each subpopulation within the target pop
Since sample obtains participants that best represent the target pop, high possibility that the results of study can be generalised
Social desirability bias
When the participants make themselves appear to be more socially desirable
-> might give answers in surveys that are more socially acceptable to make themselves look better
Opportunity sampling disadvantages
There may be a gender, cultural or socioeconomic imbalance in the sample which can affect the generalisability of the results because the sample may be a bad representative of the target population
Leads to more biased results
Internal validity
Measures the methodological quality of the experiment
High when confounding variables have been controlled or eliminated and the researchers are certain that it was the change in the IV that caused the change in the DV
Field experiment advantages
Higher eco validity, because this experiment uses realistic situations/takes place in natural environment
Less likelihood of participant bias & experimenter bias, therefore less likehood of results being distorted and impacting the validity of the experiments results
Natural experiment limitations
Low internal validity
Less control over confounding variables which leads towards more biased results
Less control over confounding variables also causes problems in the determination of causality because the researches cannot be certain that it was the change in the IV that caused the change in the DV and not some other variable
Cannot/extremely difficult to replicate
Expensive & time consuming
Natural experiment advantages
High eco validity, because experiment takes place in natural environment
Less likelihood of participant & experimenter bias, less likelihood of results being distorted by the participants & researcher.
Can be used when it is unethical to manipulate the IV
Lab experiment limitation
Low ecological validity because the experiment does not make use of realistic situations or takes place in a very controlled, unnatural environment
Therefore lab experiments do not provide a high generalisability of results beyond the settings of the experiment
There is a greater risk of participant bias and social desirability bias
Field experiment limitations
Low internal validity
Less control over confounding variables which leads towards more biased results
Having less control over confounding variables causes problems in the determination of causality because the researchers cannot be certain that it was the change in the IV that caused the change in the DV and not some other variable
Lab experiment advantages
High internal validity because confounding variables are either controlled or eliminated, therefore researchers can be certain that it was the change in the IV that caused the change in the DV, establishing cause-and-effect inferences
Easier for another researcher to replicate because a standardised procedure is used
Correlational studies advantages
Flexible, because they can be designed in a large variety of ways Performed in many different settings Easy to conduct Can be used to predict behaviour Many ways to collect data
Correlational studies limitations
Does not establish causation
There may be a ‘third’ variable that explains correlation
Can be spurious (occur by chance)
Quasi experiment advantages
Less expensive
Used when randomisation of participants is impractical or unethical
Quasi experiment limitations
Cause-and-effect inferences cannot be made because the researcher is unable to manipulate the IV
Repeated measures advantages
Since researcher is using the same participants for manipulations in the experiment, this allows the researcher to exclude the effects of individual differences that could occur
Requires fewer participants than independent and matched
