Chapter 7 Research Methods

ethical issues

conflicts about what is acceptable

The British Psychological Society (BPS)

identifies 4 principles within their Code of Ethics and Conduct: respect, competence, responsibility and integrity

respect

the dignity and worth of all persons, this includes standards of privacy and confidentially and informed consent

competence

psychologists should maintain high standards in their professional work

responsibility

psychologists should have the the responsibility to their clients, to the general public and the science of psychology

integrity

they should be honest and accurate

6 types of ethical issues

1. confidentiality
2. deception
3. informed consent
4. privacy
5. protection from harm
6. right to withdraw

confidentiality - researchers POV

may be difficult to protect confidentiality because the researcher wishes to publish the findings

confidentiality - participants POV

\- Data Protection Act makes confidentiality a legal right

\- only acceptable for personal data to be recorded if it isn’t available in a form that recognises participants

confidentiality - how to deal with it

\- researchers should not record the names of any participants

\- they should use numbers or fake names to represent individual participants

confidentiality - limitations

sometimes possible to work out who participants were, using information provided

deception - researchers POV

\- can be necessary to deceive participants about the true aims of the study, otherwise behaviour may be altered

\- distinction should be made between withholding information and deliberately providing false information

deception - participants POV

\- researcher should not decide anyone without good cause

\- prevents participants from giving informed consent (might agree without knowing what they are agreeing to)

deception - how to deal with it

\- participants should be fully debriefed after the study

\- given opportunity to express concerns and the ability to withdraw at any moment

deception - limitations

\- cost-benefit decisions are flawed because they involve subjective judgements, costs and for benefits are not always apparent until after

informed consent - researchers POV

\- means revealing the true aims of the study

\- revealing the truth and details may lead to participants knowing what is happening

→ if told they may alter their behaviour

informed consent - participants POV

\- should be told what they will be required to do in the study so they can make an informed decision (basic human right)

informed consent - how to deal with it

\- participants are asked to formally indicate their agreement to participate

\- alternative is to gain presumptive consent

\- researchers must offer the right to withdraw

informed consent - limitations

\- if a participant is given full information about a study this may invalidate the purpose of it

\- if researchers obtain consent, does not guarantee that participants really do understand

\- problem with presumptive consent is what people expect they will or will not mind

privacy - researchers POV

may be difficult to avoid invasion of privacy when studying participants without their awareness

privacy - participants POV

people do not expect to be observed by others in a certain situation (privacy of their home but might expect it in public space)

privacy - how to deal with it

don’t study anyone without their informed consent unless in a public space

privacy - limitations

no universal agreement about what constitutes a public space

protection from harm - researchers POV

studying some important questions, may lead to a level of distress to participants

→ difficult to predict the outcome of procedures, therefore, difficult to guarantee protection from harm

protection from harm - participants POV

\- nothing should harm them during the study, both physical and psychological harm

\- considered acceptable if the risk of harm is no greater than a participant would be likely to experience in ordinary life

protection from harm - how to deal with it

\- avoid any risks greater than those experienced in everyday life

\- stop the study if harm is suspected

protection from harm - limitations

harm may not be apparent at the time of the study and only judged with hindsight

right to withdraw - researchers POV

if participants leave during the study, makes the sample more biased

right to withdraw - participants POV

\- right to withdraw from study is important

\- more important if participant has been deceived

right to withdraw - how to deal with it

participant should be informed at the beginning of the study that they have the right to withdraw

right to withdraw - limitations

\- participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw because it will spoil the study

\- some cases may involve participants being paid to participate meaning they might not feel able to withdraw

scientific method - objective

means not biased, judgemental or prejudiced

scientific method - systematic

means planned, ordered and methodical, carried out the same every time

scientific method - replicable

means every time we carry out the research we achieve same or very similar results

scientific method - ongoing process

\- think of interesting question

\- formulate hypotheses

\- develop testable predictions

\- gather data to test predictions

\- develop general theories

\- makes observations

laboratory experiment

conducted in an environment where variables can be controlled

→ participants are aware they are taking part but might not know the aims of the study

laboratory experiment - strengths

\- high internal validity because the extraneous variables can be controlled

→ confident that changes observed in DV is due to the IV

laboratory experiment - limitations

\- participants are aware their behaviour is being studied meaning they may alter their behaviour

→ reduces ‘realness’ ecological validity

\- the IV/DV may be operationalised so it doesn’t represent everyday experiences

field experiment

conducted in a natural environment, participants are unaware that they are participating in the experiment

field experiment - strengths

\- not aware their behaviour is being studied (don’t demand characteristics making their behaviour more ‘natural’)

\- experiment takes place in mire natural environment so more relaxing conditions

field experiment - limitations

\- more difficult to control extraneous variables

\- ethical issues (don’t know they are being studies so difficult to debrief them)

natural experiment

investigate the relationship between an IV and DV in situations where IV cannot be directly manipulated for ethical or practical reasons

natural experiment - strengths

\- allows research where IV can’t be manipulated for ethical or practical reasons

\- enables psychologists to study ‘real’ problems such as the effects of disaster on health (increased mundane realism and ecological validity)

natural experiment - limitations

\- cannot demonstrate casual relationships because IV not directly manipulated

\- random allocation not possible, therefore there may be confounding variables that can’t be controlled

\- dependent variable may be an artificial task, reducing mundane realism

quasi experiment

to investigate relationships between an IV and DV in situations where IV us a characteristic of the person (e.g age/gender)

quasi experiment - strenghts

\- allows comparisons between types of people

quasi experiment - limitations

\- participants may be aware of being studied, creating demand characteristics and reducing internal validity

\- DV may be a fairly artificial task, reducing mundane realism

laboratory experiments designs

repeated measures, independent groups and matched pairs/participant designs

repeated measures design

all participants take part in all conditions of the experiment

→exposed to all levels of IV

e.g if measuring the impact of TV on behaviour then this would be measured before exposure and afterwards to see differences

repeated measures design - strengths

\- participant variables are controlled

\- fewer participants needed for the experiment

repeated measures design - limitations

\- order of conditions may affect performance (e.g participant may perform better on 2nd test because they are less anxious)

\- repeated experiments may result in the participant guessing the purpose, altering their behaviour

repeated measures design - dealing with the limitations

\- researchers may use 2 different tests to reduce a practice effect

\- to prevent participants guessing the purpose a cover story can be presented

independent groups design

participants are placed in separate groups

→each group does a level of the IV and then compare performance (DV)

independent groups design - strengths

\- order effects are not a problem

\- demand characteristics are reduced

independent groups design - limitations

\- researchers cannot control effects of participant variables (e.g group A has better memory than B)

\- need more participants in order to get equal data

independent groups design - dealing with the limitations

\- randomly allocate participants to conditions which distribute participants variables evenly

\- random allocation

matched pairs/participants design

use 2 groups of participants but match them on key characteristics believed to affect performance on the DV (e.g IQ)

matched pairs/participants design - strengths

\- order effects are not a problem

\- demand characteristics are reduced

matched pairs/participants design - limitations

\- time consuming and difficult to match key variables

\- can’t control all participant variables because can only match on variables known to be relevant

matched pairs/participants design - dealing with the limitations

\- restrict number of variables to match on to make it easier

\- conduct pilot study to consider key variables that might be important

reliability

the consistency of measurement (the way the DV is measured)

external reliability

the ability to replicate the results of a study

internal reliability

consistency of a measure within a test

test/measure external reliability

carry out a test of correlation between 2 sets of scores to determine if the correlation co-efficient is statistically significant (+.80 or more)

test/measure internal reliability

using a Split Half Method which compares a participant’s performance on 1 half of the test with the other to check whether the scores are consistent

mundane realism

the degree to which the setting or procedure reflects that in real life

experimental realism

the degree to which the results reflect realistic behaviour

improving reliability of experiements

standardised operating procedures and instructions

improving reliability of observational techniques

operationalise your independent/dependent variables

→specific what + how you are manipulating variables and what you are measuring

inter-observer reliability

→compare data collection sheets

→generate a correlation co-efficient

→.80 or above = high reliability

improving reliability of self-reporting techniques

test-retest method

\- researcher gives questionnaire to participants

\- after short interval (1/2 weeks) the same participants retake the questionnaire

\- scores compared using a correlation co-efficient

→.80 or higher = high reliability

inter-interviewer reliability

→compare 2 sets of data and judge against correlation co-efficient (above)

\- ensure interview questions are specific to aims of the study

validity

refers to whether an observed effect is a genuine one

internal validity

the ability of the study to test the hypothesis that it was designed to test

external validity

the ability to generalise beyond the study itself

ecological validity

the degree to which findings can be generalised beyond the study itself to real life situations

predictive validity

how well a test predicts future performance

concurrent validity

comparing the results yielded by a new test with those from an older test known to have good validity

→the same participants take both tests and the scores are compared

temporal validity

the ability to generalise a research effect beyond the particular time period of the study

historic validity

would the findings be the same today or limited to one particular place in time?

face validity

‘eye-balling’ and a form of external validity related to questionnaires and interviews

→ extent to which the items look like what a test claims to measure

improve internal validity

controlling confounding variables, reducing demand characteristics, reducing experimenter bias and strict operationalisation of the DV or behavioural strategies

reducing demand characteristics

single blind technique (participants are unaware of the aim of the study)

reducing demand characteristics and experimenter bias

double blind technique (participants and those carrying out the experiment are unaware of the aim of the study)

improving face validity and concurrent validity

\- if a questionnaire has poor face validity questions need to be revised so they relate to the topics more

\- if concurrent validity is low then questions that are irrelevant need to be removed

\- results from the new test to be compared to an old test known to have good validity

improving ecological validity

\- improvements need to come from a better research design such as using a double-blind experiment

→reduces experimental bias and demand characteristics

sampling methods

opportunity, random, stratified, systematic and volunteer sampling

opportunity sample

sample of participants produced by selecting people who are most easily available at the time of the study

opportunity sample - strengths

\- easiest method

→ use first suitable participant you can find

\- less time to find a sample

opportunity sample - limitations

biased-sample drawn from a small part of the population

random sampling

sample of participants produced using a random technique

random sampling - strengths

\- unbiased

→ everyone of the target population have an equal chance of selection

random sampling - limitations

\- hard to do and time consuming

→ need list of all members of the population and then contact them

stratified sampling

\- sample of participants produced by identifying subgroups according to their frequency in the population

\- participants then picked randomly from the subgroups

stratified sampling - strengths

\- more representative

→ a proportional and random selected representation of subgroups

stratified sampling - limitations

time consuming to identify subgroups then randomly select and contact them

systematic sample

sample obtained by selecting every nth person

systematic sample - strength

\- access to variety of participants

→ may make sample more representative and less biased

systematic sample - limitations

\- biased

→ participants less likely to be more highly motivated (extra time on their hands)

→ might be broke and needing the money offered to participate (volunteer bias)

volunteer sample

sample of participants that rely solely on volunteers to make up the sample

→ also called self-selected sample

volunteer sample - strength

\- access to variety of participants

→ may make sample more representative and less biased

volunteer sample - limitations

\- biased

→ participants less likely to be more highly motivated (extra time on their hands)

→ might be broke and needing money offered to participate