RESEARCH METHODS

• Experimental Designs: INDEPENDENT GROUPS

  Participants are divided into two groups. One group does the experiment with variable 1, the other group does the experiment with variable 2. Results are compared.
• Experimental Designs: REPEATED MEASURES 


  Participants are not divided into groups. Instead, all participants do the experiment with variable 1, then afterwards the same participants do the experiment with variable 2. Results are compared.
• Experimental Designs: MATCHED PAIRS

  Participants are selected. Then, the researchers recruit another group of participants one-by-one to match the characteristics of each member of the original group. This provides two groups that are relevantly similar and controls for differences between groups that might skew results. The experiment is then conducted as a normal independent groups design.
• LABORATORY EXPERIMENT

  An experiment conducted in an artificial, controlled environment

  • E.g. Bandura’s Bobo the doll experiment or Asch’s conformity experiments
• FIELD EXPERIMENT

  An experiment carried out in a natural, real-world environment

  • E.g. Bickman’s study of the effects of uniforms on obedience
• NATURAL EXPERIMENTS 


  An experiment where the variable changes naturally and the researcher seizes the opportunity to study the effects

  • E.g. studying the effect a change in drug laws (variable) has on addiction
• QUASI EXPERIMENTS

  • An experiment that compares between two variables that cannot be changed
  • E.g. studying differences between men (variable) and women (variable)
• OBSERVATIONAL METHOD 


  looks at and examines behaviour. For example, Zimbardo’s prison study observed how participants behaved when given certain social roles.
• Observational Design: BEHAVIOURAL CATEGORIES

  • prioritise which behaviours are recorded and ensure the different observers are consistent in what they are looking for
  • E.G a study of the effects of age and sex on stranger anxiety in infants might use the following behavioural categories to organise observational data:

  
• Evaluation points: Behavioural categories

  Inter-observer reliability: In order for observations to produce reliable findings, it is important that observers all code behaviour in the same way. For example, researchers would have to make it very clear to the observers what the difference between a ‘3’ on the anxiety scale above would be compared to a ‘7’. This inter-observer reliability avoids subjective interpretations of the different observers skewing the findings.
• EVENT SAMPLING 


  Counting how many times the participant behaves in a certain way.
• TIME SAMPLING

  Recording participant behaviour at regular time intervals. For example, making notes of the participant’s behaviour after every 1 minute has passed
• NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION

  Observations made in a real-life setting

  • E.g. setting up cameras in an office or school to observe how people interact in those environments
• CONTROLLED OBSERVATION 


  Observations made in an artificial setting set up for the purposes of observation

  • E.g. Ainsworth’s strange situation or Zimbardo’s prison study
• COVERT OBSERVATION 


  Participants are not aware they are being observed as part of a study

  • E.g. setting up hidden cameras in an office
• OVERT OBSERVATION

  Participants are aware they are being observed as part of a study

  • E.g. Zimbardo’s prison study
• PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

  Where the researcher/observer is actively involved in the situation being observed

  • E.g. in Zimbardo’s prison study, Zimbardo played the role of prison superintendent himself
• NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION 


  When the researcher/observer is not involved in the situation being observed

  • E.g. in Bandura’s Bobo the doll experiment and Ainsworth’s strange situation, the observers did not interact with the children being observed
• SELF REPORT METHODS

  Self-report methods get participants to provide information about themselves. Information can be obtained via questionnaires or interviews.
• QUESTIONNAIRES

  a standardised list of questions that all participants in a study answer

  • E.G Hazan and Shaver used questionnaires to collate self-reported data from participants in order to identify correlations between attachment as infants and romantic attachment as adults.
• CLOSED QUESTIONS

  Have a fixed set of responses, such as yes/no or multiple choice questions.

  • E.g. “Are you religious?”
  • Yes
  • No
  • E.g. “How many hours do you spend online each day?”
  • <1 hour
  • 1-2 hours
  • 2-8 hours
  • >8 hours
• OPEN QUESTIONS

  Do not have a fixed set of responses, instead enabling participants to provide responses in their own words.

  • E.g. “How did you feel when you thought you were administering a lethal shock?” or “What do you look for in a romantic partner and why?”
• Evaluation: STRENGTHS OF QUESTIONNAIRES 


  1. QUANTIFIABLE: Closed questions provide quantifiable data in a consistent format, which enables to statistically analyse information in an objective way.
• Evaluation: STRENGTHS OF QUESTIONNAIRES 


  2. REPLICABILITY: Because questionnaires are standardised (i.e. pre-set, all participants answer the same questions), studies involving them can be easily replicated. This means the results can be confirmed by other researchers, strengthening certainty in the findings.
• Evaluation: WEAKNESSES OF QUESTIONNAIRES


  1. BIASED SAMPLES: Questionnaires handed out to people at random will select for participants who actually have the time and are willing to complete the questionnaire. As such, the responses may be biased towards those of people who e.g. have a lot of spare time.
• Evaluation: WEAKNESSES OF QUESTIONNAIRES



  2. DISHONEST ANSWERS: Participants may lie in their responses – particularly if the true answer is something they are embarrassed or ashamed of (e.g. on controversial topics or taboo topics like sex)
• Evaluation: WEAKNESSES OF QUESTIONNAIRES




  3. MISUNDERSTANDING/DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATION: Different participants may interpret the same question differently. For example, the “are you religious?” example above could be interpreted by one person to mean they go to church every Sunday and pray daily, whereas another person may interpret religious to mean a vague belief in the supernatural.
• Evaluation: WEAKNESSES OF QUESTIONNAIRES





  4. LESS DETAIL: Interviews may be better suited for detailed information – especially on sensitive topics – than questionnaires. For example, participants are unlikely to write detailed descriptions of private experiences in a questionnaire handed to them on the street.
• INTERVIEWS


  In an interview, participants are asked questions in person.

  • For example, Bowlby interviewed 44 children when studying the effects of maternal deprivation.
• STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

  Questions are standardised and pre-set. The interviewer asks all participants the same questions in the same order.
• UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEW


  The interviewer discusses a topic with the participant in a less structured and more spontaneous way, pursuing avenues of discussion as they come up.
• SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW


  cross between structured and unstructured interviews
• (+) STRENGTHS OF INTERVIEWS

  1. More detail: unstructured interviews conducted by a skilled interviewer – enable researchers to delve deeper into topics of interest, for example by asking follow-up questions. May make participants more open to discussing personal or sensitive issues.
• (+) STRENGTHS OF INTERVIEWS


  2. Replicability: Structured interviews are easily replicated because participants are all asked the same pre-set list of questions. Means the results can be confirmed by other researchers, strengthening certainty in the findings.
• (-) WEAKNESSES OF INTERVIEWS


  1. Lack of quantifiable data: Although unstructured interviews enable researchers to delve deeper into interesting topics, this lack of structure may produce difficulties in comparing data between participants. E.G one interview may go down one avenue of discussion and another interview down a different avenue. This qualitative data may make objective or statistical analysis difficult.
• (-) WEAKNESSES OF INTERVIEWS



  2. Interviewer effects: The interviewer’s appearance or character may bias the participant’s answers. E.G a female participant may be less comfortable answering questions on sex asked by a male interviewer and and thus give different answers than if she were asked by a female interviewer.
• CASE STUDIES

  are detailed investigations into an individual, a group of people, or an event.
• TYPICAL VS UNUSUAL CASES

  most cases studies focus on unusual individuals, groups and events
• LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY

  take place over an extended time period, with researchers checking in with the subject at various intervals.
• (+) STRENGTHS OF CASE STUDIES

  1. Provides detailed qualitative data: Rather than focusing on one or two aspects of behaviour at a single point in time (e.g. in an experiment), case studies produce detailed qualitative data.