psych paper 3

lab experiment

Controlled, artificial setting, high internal validity

field experiment

Conducted in natural settings, more ecological validity

Natural experiments

IV is naturally occuring, more ecological validity

Correlational studies

measures the relationship between two variables, allows study of variables that may be unethical to manipulate experimentally

Surveys/questionnaires

Standardized questions are used to gather data, ability to reach large and diverse populations

Structured interview

Same question same order, high internal validity

semi-structured interview

flexible question order same questions, more in-depth exploration of topics

Unstructured interview

Conversation based (participant-led), more insightful data

Case studies

In-depth study of one individual or group, combines methods

Naturalistic observation

Real-world settings, no interference, high ecological validity

Controlled observation

Researcher manipulates environment, more internal validity

participant observation

Researcher is a part of the group, undisturbed group, high ecological validity

Non-participant observations

Researcher observes from outside, researcher can remain objective

Focus groups

Group discussion led by a facilitator, explores shared experiences and group dynamics

Content analysis/meta-analysis

System analysis of communications (media, interviews), can be quantitative or qualitative data

Methodological triangulation

Interviews and observations, more comprehensive understanding of the research topic and other peoples’ approaches

Data triangulation

Multiple participants/times/locations, verifies findings (increases validity)

Random sampling

Everyone in the entire target population has an equal chance of being selected, very difficult to achieve but sample is representative of target population

Stratified sampling

Researcher matches sample to have the same proportions as the population, highly representative of population

Opportunity/convenience sampling

Uses population available at the time, not representative of population, subject to bias

Systematic sampling

Subjects chosen in an orderly way (eg. every other name from a list), provides a representative sample

Volunteer sampling

Participants respond to a request (choose themselves), relatively ethical

Cluster sampling

Researcher strategically divides population into clusters and picks randomly from each cluster, may not be representative of entire population

Purposive sampling

People who have the most appropriate information on the topic are chosen, most effective way to gather qualitative data, too subjective

Snowball sampling

Participants are asked to invite more participants themselves, increases size of same, might be biased as the participants are all related somehow

Case-to-case generalization (transferability)

determining if the lessons learned in one specific situation can be applied to other similar situations. determining how much one can learn from studying a single case and apply those lessons to broader contexts.

sample-to-population (representational) generalization

using observations from a smaller group (the sample) to make broader statements about a larger group (the population)

member checking (credibility check)

returning findings to the participants to verify accuracy, clarify misinterpretations, and identify biases

triangulation (credibility check)

using multiple sources, methods, or researchers to investigate a research question. Corroborates findings, allows viewing of data from different perspectives

peer debriefing (credibility check)

consulting with objective colleagues who are not directly related to the research. Challenges the researchers assumptions, biases, and choices

reflexivity (credibility check)

researcher is self-aware of personal biases and makes active choices to prevent them

experimenter bias

researcher has an unintentional effect on the results of the study (eg. a woman interviewer asking participants about their opinions on women)

leading questions (bias, qual)

questions are phrased in a way that there appears to be an intended answer (eg. isn’t it so horrible how much we have to study for the IB psych exam?)

dominant respondent (bias, qual)

for group settings: one participant is leading the discussion, and it appears other participants are naturally agreeing with them

sampling bias

certain groups are over/under represented in the sample, sample does not accurately match intended population

reporting bias

The data that is available is all that is able to be used (eg. using disease rates only accounts for the cases that are documented)

Theoretical generalization

If the study can be applied to the theory as a whole