psych paper 3

Case study

In-depth study of the behaviour of one person or a small group; multiple methodologies; used when large samples aren’t available/ unethical to manipulate; often longitudinal; limits generalisability (unique phenomena); may reflect researcher bias due to prolonged close interaction (compromises impartiality/ influences authenticity of behaviour).

Naturalistic observation

Observing behaviour in real-life settings without manipulation; may involve hiding identity (covert/ overt); observer can be a participant or a non-participant; no intervention by the researcher.

Participant observation

Researcher participates in behaviour being studied.

Non-participant observation

Researcher observes behaviour without taking part in the activity.

Unstructured interview

Qualitative interview style; conversational, open-ended questions; useful when background knowledge makes predetermined questions difficult; data can be harder to analyse (unorganised); less artificial = expression of complex ideas.

Semi-structured interview

Interview with predetermined topics but allowance for follow-up questions; open-ended questions; data collection can be time-consuming; somewhat conversational; flexibility in responses/ questions while maintainign focus of interview.

Focus group

Group interview (8–12 people) about common interest guided by a moderator; efficient data collection, lower cost; may lead to dominance by certain participants and risk of demand characteristics/ social desirability effect; can evoke answers that may not arise in individual interviews.

Surveys

Structured/ semi-structured, gather self-reported data = demand ; can yield large amounts of data in minimal time; responses may be binary = limited authenticity; analysed descriptively or inferentially.

Field experiments

Experiments conducted in the real-life environment of participants = high ecological validity; IV manipulated but control of extraneous variables is limited = low internal validity; Ps may be unaware of participation = low demand (covert).

Quasi-experiment

No random allocation to conditions, IV occurs naturally (high ecological validity) = correlational; cannot manipulate IV = low control over extraneous variables = low internal validity; often not replicable ethically.

True/Lab experiment

Highly controlled (artificial) setting = often low ecological validity, high internal validity; IV manipulated = cause-effect; may involve demand characteristics; standardised procedures = highly replicable.

Random sampling

Every member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected; aims for representativeness = highly generalisable; can be expensive + time consuming; may face nonresponse bias.

Purposive sampling

Researchers deliberately select participants with specific characteristics of interest; common in qualitative research to study particular phenomena; smaller candidate pool; filters nonresponse bias.

Convenience sampling

Participants are those readily available; quick + easy; may not be representative of the target population.

Self-selected (volunteer) sampling

Participants volunteer to participate; advertisment = more motivated to cooperate; easy to recruit; may differ from non-volunteers = may bias representativeness.

Snowball sampling

Existing participants refer others; useful for hard-to-reach populations; sample may be connected = not fully representative.

Credibility

extent to which conclusions reflect the information provided by participants + whether data is trustworthy. (qualitative)

increasing credibility/ bias (qualitative)

researcher/ methodological/ data triangulation, personal reflexivity, epistemological reflexivity/ decision trail, member checking, peer review, rich detailed descriptions, prolonged engagement/ persistent observation.

Researcher triangulation

Multiple researchers independently interpret/ analyse data to cross-check results and reduce individual biases. this means bias is not incorporated into the results, thus the results achieved are not merely due to one researcher’s biases.

Methodological triangulation

Using different data collection methods with the same sample to verify results = choice of method alone did not lead to results.

Data triangulation

Using diverse data sources (different times, settings, populations) to check consistency of findings = ensures not sample alone that led to results.

Personal reflexivity

Researchers identify and reflect on their own beliefs, attitudes, and background to assess how these may influence results. means that researchers are aware of their own internal biases, thus are less likely to inadvertently incorporate them into the research process. Without reflexivity, confirmation bias may be present.

confirmation bias

researcher has prior belief which is confirmed through experimentation + results obtained. does not consider other options

Epistemological reflextivity/ Decision trail

researchers reflect on how the way in which the study was conducted may have affected the results achieved.

Can be done using a decision trail: Documentation of the basis for decisions so others can verify interpretations.

Member checking

Sharing responses, interpretations, or conclusions with participants to correct errors in interpretation and clarify meaning. Reduces bias in interpretation as participants can provide additional information.

Peer reviewing

External experts review results and interpretations to provide independent validation. provides impartiality as it ensures that biases are absent from conclusions drawn.

Rich, detailed descriptions

In-depth accounts of participants, settings, behaviours, and methods to support transferability of findings. also increases credibility and reduces bias.

Prolonged engagement/Persistent observation

Spending substantial time with participants to develop understanding; enhances credibility; often longitudinal. spending a brief/ superficial amount of time with participants reduces credibility.

Bias

Systematic errors arising during sampling, data collection/ analysis, where researcher or participant influences threaten validity. any factors distorting findings, trustworthiness + transparency in the study.

reducing bias, quantitative

single/ double blind control, sampling (random/ stratified), standardised procedures, pilot study, deception, covert naturalistic observation, confidentiality/ anonymity.

Hawthorne effect

Participants alter behaviour due to awareness of being observed.

informed consent

respect for human ps must be maintained. ps informed about methods, procedures, time frame of experiment. how data will be used + stored, confidentiality of data. potential benefits/ risks of participating. withdrawal can take place at any time (before, during, after). contacts provided for followup/ assistance. questions asked + answered to full p satisfaction.

protection from harm

ps must be protected from all forms of physical + mental harm, including aspects like self-esteem. ps must not suffer negative consequences from participation = special follow up meetings must be arranged in some cases. if vulnerable groups used (ie children, elderly) Rs must ensure special care provided + procedure not overly complicated. sometimes p distress may be unexpected = therapeutic help must be provided afterwards.

Deception

in many cases the true aim of the study cannot be revealed to participants as they may subconsciously change their behaviour, thus some degree of deception must be used. this must be as minimal as possible, and fully justified by the study’s purposes. nature of deception must be revealed to Ps after study. deception by omission = withholding certain info/ creating ambiguity about the study’s aims. must be ensured that deception does not cause distress: if this is likely, study should be cancelled, or special followup procedures must be put in place.

Confidentiality/ anonymity

data collected in research process + ps in study must remain anonymous to any third parties. nobody should be able to establish identity of ps from published results/ other disclosed info. has implications for how data is recorded + stored (e.g. coded names in databases) + reported. confidential = R can connect P identity to data obtained, but cannot share this with anyone else. anonymous = even R cannot connect obtained info to P identity, e.g. online survey where name is not provided.

Right to withdraw

Ps must feel free to withdraw from study at any time (before, during, after) without explaining reasoning. must be made clear before start of study + reinforced at end. if Ps withdraw, can choose to withdraw data = must be deleted from all records + not used.

debriefing

afterwards, ps must be fully informed of study’s nature, true aims, how data will be stored + used. must be allowed chance to ask any + all questions + must be openly answered. must be given opportunity to withdra data. ps must be informed if they were deceived + reasons for deception explained.

Publication

Reporting all findings, including negative or null results, to allow comprehensive assessment and meta-analyses.

Generalisability (external validity)

extent to which findings are applicable to a broader population beyond the study sample. (quantitative)

population validity/ representational generalisability

findings accurately represent the population studied + can be applied to similar populations.

Statistical validity (generalisability)

Appropriate statistical analyses and adequate sample size to support conclusions beyond chance. findings can be applied to larger populations if representational.

Ecological validity

Findings are applicable to real-world contexts and everyday settings.

Cross-cultural validity

Findings hold across different cultures or contexts; requires diverse sampling.

improving generalisability

random/ stratified sampling, large sample size, ecologically valid method, cross-culturally valid sample, findings can be replicated/ repeated.

WEIRD bias

over-representation of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic populations in samples (ie. eurocentric); limits generalisability.

YAVIS bias

Young, Attentive, Verbal, Intelligent, Social/ Successful individuals (ie. uni students) often used in samples; may bias generalisability.

Pilot study

Preliminary study to identify problems, test instruments, and refine procedures on a small-scale before a full-scale study.

Transferability

extent to which results can be considered relevant in other contexts. (qualitative)

theoretical transferability

findings can be applied to further develop the theory = broader application of knowledge to different settings.

improving transferability

sample = broad, diverse, selection method = random/ purposive, cutural relevance (emic/ etic). research context = widely applicable/ tied to specific culture, environment, time period. triangulation, rich detailed descriptions, theoretical contribution.