component 2: experimental + non experimental

pcdrip

privacy

confidentiality

deception

right to withdraw

informed consent

protection from harm

privacy

a person's right to control the flow of information about themselves

confidentiality

the communication of personal information from one person to another - trust that this info will be protected

deception

participants are not aware of the true aims of the study and cannot give informed consent

right to withdraw

participants understanding that they can make an informed decision on whether to participate

informed consent

participants are given comprehensive information regarding the experiment so they can make an informed decision on whether to participate

protection from harm

participants should not experience negative physical or psychological effects beyond what would be normal in a day to day life

how to deal with privacy

observations should only be carried out in public spaces and interviews should not ask personal information

privacy limitation

there is no universal agreement of what constitutes a public place

how to deal with confidentiality

researchers should anonymise all P's with the use of codes/ numbers e.g. initials

confidentiality limitation

it is sometimes possible to work out who the participants were using the info provided

how to deal with deception

need for deception should be agreeing by an ethics committee. P's must be fully debriefed after the study.

deception limitation

the ethics committee cannot always predict what harm may come from the deception

how to deal with right to withdraw

P's should be made aware before the study that they can leave at any time. any incentive will remain even if they decide to leave

right to withdraw limitation

P's might feel that they cannot withdraw or it will spoil the study. also, the use of incentive may also make the P feel like they can't leave

how to deal with informed consent

p's must be asked to formally indicate their agreement to take part. this should state in detail the nature and purpose of the study

informed consent limitation

to give fully informed consent in the beginning, the P will be aware of the aim of the study (demand characteristics)

how to deal with protection from harm

studies should be designed so that P's come to no more harm that they would experience in everyday lfie

protection from harm limitation

difficult to predict if P will be harmed during research

1st stage of debrief

inform the P's of the purpose of the research

2nd stage of debrief

ensure no undue stress to the P's

3rd stage of debrief

ensure the P's leave in a 'frame of mind that is at least as sound as when they entered'

4th stage of debrief

give the P's the right to withdraw their data and to see the finished report if they do so wish

5th stage of debrief

provide an opportunity for questions

6th stage of debrief

thank P's for participation

independent groups

participants are divided into two separate groups: one group do condition A, one group do condition B

repeated measures

there is only one group of participants: they take part in both conditions of the experiment

matched pairs

participants are tested before taking part and are matched for qualities into pairs: they will be identified Aa, Bb, Cc, Dd

order effects

a confounding variable arising from the order which participants take place in the different conditions

counter balancing

alternation of the order of conditions to control order effects in repeated measure design

independent groups strengths

- no order effects: different P's in each condition

- less chance of demand characteristics: P's less likely to guess the aim of the study

independent groups weaknesses

- more P's needed: different P's in each condition, need a larger sample

- individual differences: different P's in each condition, so comparing results of each condition not accurate

repeated measures strengths

- less P's needed: same people in each condition

- controls for individual differences: same people in each condition

repeated measures weaknesses

- more materials needed: the same test can't be used for the P's

- more chance of demand characteristics: P's are more likely to guess the aim of the study

matched pairs strengths

- no order effects: different P's in each condition

- less chance of demand characteristics: P's less likely to guess aim of study

matched pairs weaknesses

- matching is difficult: impossible to match all participant variable

- time consuming: lengthy process to match P's before the experiment

lab location

• high control, artificial environment

• access to scientific equipment

• p's know they're being studied

lab location strengths

- easy to control: limit impact of EV's

- access to specialist equipment

lab location weaknesses

- artificial behaviour: p's more likely to change behaviour

- low ecological validity

field location

natural, everyday environment

field location strengths

- access to wide range of behaviours due to availability of environments

- less likely to be aware of research taking place: natural behaviour

field location weaknesses

- difficult to control: may impact validity of results

- may not be feasible to study behaviour that needs specialist eqipment

online location

- surveys and experiments most commonly used online

- social media used to find samples

online location strengths

- can access large, diverse samples

- data collected electronically so can be used to collect and analyse

online location weaknesses

- can be difficult to monitor ethical issues as p's not in presence of researcher

- hard to know if p's being honest

demand characteristics

participants change behaviour when they know they are being studied, cannot be sure if behaviour shown is 'true'

mundane realism

the extent to which a study reflects a real like environment

ecological validity

the extent to which findings of the study can be applied into the 'real world'

experiment

research method where causal conclusions can be drawn because an IV has been manipulated to see the causal effect on the DV

lab experiment

- conducted under controlled, artificial

- researcher randomly allocates participants to experimental or control conditions

field experiment

- conducted in natural environment

- participants often unaware they are being studied

quasi experiment

- researcher hasn't deliberately manipulated IV

- IV is a naturally occurring difference between people

- DV is usually measured in a lab experiment

natural experiment

- researcher doesn't deliberately manipulate IV

- they take advantage of naturally occurring DV

- DV may be tested in lab, in the field or online

lab experiment strengths

- high control means cause and effect can be determined, increasing internal validity

- easy to replicate due to standardised procedure

lab experiment weaknesses

- artificial task/ environment unlikely to be reflective of everyday behaviour: low ecological validity

- increased chance of demand characteristics as aware of being studied

field experiment strengths

- less chance of demand characteristics

- everyday environment likely to be reflective of everyday behaviour: high ecological validity

field experiment weaknesses

- hard to control extraneous variables: difficult to establish cause and effect

- ethical issues: p's unaware of being studied, hard to debrief them

natural experiment strengths

- high external validity as study of 'real problems' as they happen

- can be used when not practical to manipulate IV

natural experiment weaknesses

- reduced opportunities for study as events may rarely happen

- hard to establish cause and effect due to lack of control when IV is naturally occurring

quasi experiment strengths

- often carried out under controlled conditions so can compare the difference between people

quasi experiment weaknesses

- cannot randomly allocate people to conditions so likely to be confounding variables

- 'like a lab' environment could be contrived therefore lowering ecological validity

reliability

the extent to which a test produces consistent results

internal reliability

test is consistent in itself

external reliability

the extent to which a test produces consistent results over several occasions.

three methods for assessing reliability

split-half method

test-retest method

inter-rater reliability

split half method

• involves splitting a pp’s test answers in half and seeing whether s/he got the same or similar scores on the two halves

• if so, internal reliability is high

• if not, it is low and individual questions would need to be redesigned

test retest method

• involves testing and retesting the same participants over time, with the same test, and comparing their scores

• if the scores are the same the test has external reliability

inter rater reliability

• where two or more psychologists produce consistent results by using a standardised procedure, agreed coding system, or correlation of their data

target population

the large group of people the researcher wishes to study

sampling frame

list of people from the target population from which the sample is drawn

sample

small group of people who represent the target population and who are studied

opportunity technique

researcher uses people who are available at that time and willing to take part

self-selected technique

researcher uses people who volunteer to participate in the study, they select themselves as participants

random technique

every member of the target population has to be available to the researcher. each person has an equal chance of being chosen.

systematic technique

involves selecting every nth number on the list of the target population

stratified technique

selecting participants in proportion to their frequency in the target population

quota technique

same process as stratified; researcher chooses (opportunity) who becomes part of the sample for each subgroup

snowball technique

current participants recruit further participants from people that they know who would be suitable for the study

opportunity strengths

easier than other sampling techniques

- approach who is available at the time and requires little planning

opportunity weaknesses

- unrepresentative: if sample is only from one place so it is hard to generalise to the target population

- researcher bias

self-selected strengths

- adverts can reach a wide variety of participants

- lack of researcher bias

self-selected weaknesses

- volunteers tend to be more motivated to participate so participants will be similar

- only people who see the advert will be able to volunteer

random strengths

- no researcher bias: P's selected randomly

- all members have equal chance of being chosen because P's are chosen from the whole target population

random weaknesses

can be time consuming - if members randomly chosen don't participate the process must be restarted

systematic strengths

- quicker than other methods as no calculations needed

- unbiased because no researcher influence

systematic weaknesses

- sample may not be representative by chance

- people selected may say no, process restarted

stratified strengths

- most representative of target population as all subgroups are represented so we can generalise the results

- no researcher bias

stratified weaknesses

- time consuming compared to other methods: if P's refuse process must be restarted

quota strengths

most representative of target population as all subgroups are represented so we can generalise the results

quota weaknesses

- researcher bias because P's are chosen using opportunity sampling

- time consuming because calculations are needed

snowball strengths

enables the researcher to locate groups that may be difficult to access

snowball weaknesses

not representative because recruits will chose people that are similar to them

validity

accuracy

internal validity

• the findings are accurate and the effects on the DV are caused by the IV

• therefore the study measures what it intends to measure

external validity

• whether the study paints a true picture of real life behaviours (e.g. if the tasks have mundane realism) and whether the findings would apply to different places, different times, or different people

temporal validity

• refers to the validity of the findings in relation to the progression of time

• how far can the results be applied to today

population validity

the extent to which the findings can be generalised to other populations of people

ecological validity

the extent to which the findings can be generalised beyond the present situation to other settings and situations

validity issues

- unrepresentative sample

- researcher bias

- research setting is artificial

- task is not something done in real life

ways of assessing validity

concurrent

content

face

construct

predictive