Self-report techniques

• Self-report measure- PPs knowingly provide information about themselves (attitudes, opinions, behaviour, experience).
• Two methods of self-reporting: questionnaires, interviews. These can be used to gather data to measure the DV in an experiment, or simply to find out information.
• Questionnaires:

  • A set of predetermined written questions & can be carried out in person, by post, phone, email or on the internet.
  • Allows researcher to examine what people think/ feel without having to interpret behaviour.
  • Can be highly objective & scientific if well designed.
  • Are much harder than they seem; need to consider appropriateness, need to be mindful of ethics, need to ask enough but not too much, need to give all the options in a closed question & must decide on either open or closed questions.
• Closed questions:

  • Researcher restricts the range of answers possible (eg tick boxes).
  • Straight forward, easily measured, quantitative data is used so analysis is easy.
  • Detail & realism may be lost as people's answers are forced into a category.
• Open questions:

  • Researcher doesn't restrict the range of answers available.
  • Lots of detailed, qualitative data can be collected.
  • This makes it more difficult to analyse.
• Questionnaires Strengths:

  • Large amounts of data can be easily & quickly collected- compared to other methods.
  • The researcher does not need to be present so can reduce investigator effects & is more efficient.
  • PPs may be more inclined to reveal personal/ confidential/ controversial opinions as no one is to judge.
• Questionnaires Weaknesses:

  • Potential for social desirability bias- PPs can lie to present themselves in a good light.
  • People may interpret questions differently, or closed questions may force people to answer a particular way- compromising validity.
  • Only literate people with time/ willingness to do it, take parts- questions whether findings can be generalised.
• Interviews:

  • Face to face questioning of PPs (or on phone/ skype etc) which can be done 1 to 1 or in groups.
  • Can gather more detail with a more flexible, natural approach to questioning.
  • Can be highly structured or very open (quantitative or qualitative).
  • Enables the researcher to probe further on certain areas.
• Structured Interviews:

  • Set list of pre-determined questions used in the same way with each participant.
  • No deviation from original questions & can involve open and closed questions.
• Unstructured Interviews:

  • May start with a topic area & possibly some pre-determined questions.
  • As the conversation develops, new questions are asked based on the PP's responses and the interviewer can ask for more detail or clarification.
  • Each PP's experience will be different.
• Recording information:

  • Notes taken by interviewer (could detract from quality of interview).
  • Notes taken by third party.
  • Voice recorder (gives an accurate, permanent record which can be checked again).
  • Video recorder (picks up body language too).
• Interviews Strengths:

  • Can be more flexible than questionnaires- can clarify meaning or ask when more detail is needed.
  • Lots of in-depth, qualitative data can be collected.
  • Can encourage honesty- harder to lie face to face than on paper.
• Interviews Negatives:

  • Time consuming- one PP at a time.
  • More complicated analysis, as data is detailed.
  • Increased risk of investigator effects, eg smiling, frowning, interruptions, interpersonal variables (how likeable/ attractive interviewer is).
• Case Studies= a method of gathering detailed information about an individual or group of people focusing on a single aspect of behaviour or a particular event.
• • Case studies produce descriptive data that's rich in qualitative detail.
  • Often use multiple sources: eg testimony of the people involved, written records, eye witness accounts, video/ voice recordings etc.
• Case Studies Strengths:

  • Produces rich, meaningful, in-depth data.
  • It is a useful method for infrequent behaviours or behaviours unethical to measure using experiment.
  • Potentially high in ecological validity & realism.
• Case Studies Weaknesses:

  • Individualistic, so difficult to generalise results.
  • Potential ethical concerns.
  • Difficult to replicate & check reliability.
  • Potential for researcher bias- the researcher can become emotionally attached & may want to help the person in the study, therefore reducing the validity of the results.