Research method key words

participant reactivity

the extent to which the p changes behaviour due to demand characteristics

Aims

a general expression of what the researcher intends to investigate

operationalsied hypothesis

an operationalised statement of what the researcher believes to be true

Directional hypothesis

(one-tailed) States the difference that is expected between the variables. The study is steered in one direction.

Non-directional hypothesis

(two-tailed) States that there is a difference between the variables but not specifically the nature of the difference.

Null hypothesis

There is no difference between variables/that the effect you are looking for does not exist

Operationalism

\
Process of defining variables clearly so they can be measured - Quantitative.

extraneous variables

Any variable (other than the IV) that may affect the DV if is not controlled  (nuisance variable)

confounding variables

Any variable (other than IV) that may have affected the DV so we cannot be sure of the true source of the change to DV.

independent variable

the aspect of the study the researcher can manipulate

dependent variable

the aspect the researcher is trying to measure

demand characteristics

Any cue from the researcher or from the research situation may be interpreted by participants as revealing the purpose of the investigation

investigator effects

\
\
 Any effects of the investigator's behaviour on the research outcome or design decsions

Randomisation

The use of chance when designing investigations to control for the effects of bias

Standardisation

Using the same formalised procedures and instructions for all participants in a research study

variables

any thing that can vary or chnage in an experiment

Pilot studies

small scale trial run of an actual investigation

allows researcher to identify problems + modify

single blind procedure

participants are not told the aim of other details til after

any infromation/demand characteristics are not revealed until the end of

Double-blind procedure

neither participants nor researcher is aware of the aims of investigation

drug trials

control groups/control conditons

act as baseline to allow for comparsions to be made and establish causation

counterbalancing

an attempt to control for order effects in repeated measures (half do 1)

independent groups

groups in which participants experience a different condition

participants only experience 1 level of IV and then will be compared

strengths of independent group design

no order effects

less likley to guess study/control over demand characteristcs

limitations of independent groups

participant variables = not matched CE

less econimical = 2x p for same data

single result only

repeated measures

all participants take place in all conditions of the experiment

2 mean sources compared to see if difference

strengths of repeated measures

participant varibles controlled

fewer participants needed

limitations repeated measures

counterbalancing is required to resolve order effects

order effects = fatigue/bordem

p can guess aim = demand charactertisitics

matched pairs

paired togetehr on a relevant varibale

allocated to different condtions of the experiment

strengths of matched pairs

participants take on single condition = no order effects

p variables are matched

limitations of matched pairs

p can never be matched exactly may effect dv

pretest may be needed

time-consuming

expensive

types of experiments

laboratory

field

natural

quasi

lab experiment

conducted under controlled conditons in which the researcher manipulates the IV to measure the effect on dv

strengths of lab experiments

high control/internal validity = EV/CV can be minimised

replication

able to see causation

limitations of lab experiment

lack of generalisability

artficial setting = low mundane realism

difference between mundane realism and ecological validity

mundane realsim = the extent to which events IN an experiment are likley to occur in the real world

ecological validity = where results of the study can be generalised to real-life

field experiment

an experiment that takes place in a natural setting

researcher goes to particpants

the research manipualtes IV and records the effect on DV

strength of field experiment

higher mundane realism

produces more valid/authentic behaviour as they are unware they are being studies

high external validity

limitations of field experiment

Loss of control - extraneous variables

Cause and effect between IV and DV may be more difficult to establish

Ethical issues - may not give informed consent 

Precise replication unavailable

Less control when choosing participants

Natural experiment

An experiment where the change in IV is not brought about by the researcher as its naturally occurring

The researcher records the effect on DV

strength of natural experiment

Taking advantage of a preexisting IV

Removes ethical issues = may be unethical to manipulate IV

Higher external validity - ecological validity

Study real-life issues as they happen

Test in ethically sensitive areas

limitation of natural experiments

Rare/reduced opportunities = limited generalisation

No control over extraneous variables > Less sure whether the IV affects the DV

no control over p variables

quasi experiment

An experiment where the IV is based on an existing/natural difference between people (naturally occurring cannot be changed)

No random allocating participants to conditions 

strengths of quasi experiments

high control = can be carried out under controlled conditons

comaprison can be made between people = IV is naturally occuring

limitation of quasi experiment

particpants are not randomalluy allocated = no control of participant variables

causal relationship not demonstated = cannot manipulate/control IV

population

large group of people that a researcher is intrested in studying

Random sampling

all memebers of a target population have a equal chance of being selected

evaluation for random sampling

potentially unbiased

time consuming + may refuse

Systematic sampling

every nth gets selected from target population

evaluation for systematic sampling

researcher has no controlled/unbiased

time consuming + may refuse

stratified sampling

composition of the sample relfects proportion of people in target population

evaluation for stratified sampling

designed to accuralety represent populations

produce representative sample

time consusming

cannot reflect all the ways people are different

opportunity sampling

selecting sample based on opportunity

evaluation for opportunity sampling

less costly/potentially free

unrepresentative

researcher bias

researcher bias

when the researcher's beliefs or expectations influence the research design or data collection process.

volunteer sampling

involved p selecting themselves to be part of a sample

evaluation for volunteer sampling

less time consuming/cost

volunteer bias

unable to generalise

content analysis

type of observational research

indirect study of communications produced

coding

communication/written data categorised into meaningful units

may involve counting up the number of times a particular word or phrase appears to produce quantative data

thematic analysis

recurrent theme within communication that is then used to categorise data (like a coding unit)

strength of content analysis

may already be in public domain

no issue with obtaining consent

\
adpated to produce both quantative and qualatitive data > can be adapted to best suit the research

limitations of content analysis

lack of objectivity due to subjective nature

communication is studied out of context which reduces the validity of the of the conclusions

how can content analysis be improved on

through reflexivity (personal viewpoints are gathered alongside research as personal reflections of impact)

reliability

measure is consistent, the data is consistently produced

how to assess reliability

test-retest

inter-observer

correlation

test-retest reliability

same test/questionnaire is given to same person

if reliable will be the same each time

inter-observer reliability

two observers compare data by conducting pilot study

check that they are applying the behavioural categories the same way

record independently

correlation

the two score sets should have a correlation of +0.80 to be reliable

improve reliability for a questionnaire

rewrite the question

improve reliability for a interview

use the same interview and improved training (avoid leading questionnaires ect)

improve reliability for a experiment

standardised procedure (strict control over aspects of the procedure e.g instructions)

improve reliability for a observations

operationalised behavioural categories (should be measurable, not overlap and all possibel behaviours included)

otherwise may become subjective

validity

whether the results are geneuine and measures what it aims to measure

ecological validity

whether findings can be generalised from one setting to another

temporal validity

findings are consistent overtime

assessing validity

face validity

concurrent validity

face validity

does it measure what is is supposed to measure on the face it

concurrent validity

whether finding are similar to those on a well established test (must have correlation +.80)

improving validity in experiments

control group (more confident of causation)

standardised procedure (minimise p reactivity & investigator bias)

improving validity in questionnaire

lie scale to control for effects social desirability bias

assure that all data is confidential

improving validity in observations

behavioural categories that are well defined

improving validity in qualatitive research

use of triangulation (using differnet sources as evidence)

interpretive validity

the meaning that is attributed to a participant's behavior

type | error

null hypothesis is rejected but alternative is accepted

false postive

too lenient (0.10)

type ||

null hypothesis is accepted but alternative is true

false negative

too stringent (0.01)

Abstract

summary of the study including aims, method, findings

introduction

a review of relvant theories and studies related and hypothesis

method

includes design, sample, apparatus/material, procedure, ethics

results

findings (descriptive graphs ect)

discussion

summary of relationships to precious research, limitations and implications to real world

Kuhn + psych

Psych lacks universally accepted paradigm

theory construction

deducting the correct hypothesis out a range of predictions on the basis of a theory

empirical

direct sensory experience

how does psycholgoical research impact the economy

attachment = role of the father increase in labour/working force as mother work as well + mazmine income to contribute to encomony

\
Development of treatments for mental disorders = absence cost £15 billion, 1/3 casued by depression → development of drugs = better workforce

main aims of peer review

allocate funding

validate quality + relevance

to get amendments/improvements

issues with peer review

anonymity = may use to critque rival

publication bias = journals want signf. headlines → prefer postive research

burrying ground breaking research = may go agaisnt status quo

desiging questionnaire

avoid jargon

avoid double barrel questions

avoid leading questions

designing interviews

schedule to reduce bias

quest roome to increase openess

rapport

ethnic (remind anonuminty/withdraw)

piolting = ensure triaumph of research design

correlation coefficent

represents the direction + strength

postive/strong = 1

negative/weak = 0

observation techniques

naturalisitc = normal setting for target behaciour to occure

controlled = control over extraneous variables, maniplutate, obervser effects

covert = unaware → behaviour remains the same

overt = give consent before

particpant = obsverer is part of the group

non-particioant = remain objective and seperate

unstructured observation

researcher writes down everyhting they see producing rich account of behaviour