s2

• pilot studies

  small-scale trial runs of an investigation, using only a handful of participants to ensure the procedures and tests run smoothly. This allows researchers to check questions are phrased correctly in questionnaires or interviews, to ensure coding systems are accurate in observations, or to ensure that tests are accurate/appropriate in the study
• Single Blind experimental procedures 

  This is where participants are not told some aspects of the study, such as the aim, which condition of an experiment they are in (or even if there are other conditions)
• Double Blind experimental procedures

  In a double blind procedure neither the participant or the researcher know the aims or conditions of an experiment. The study is often conducted by a third party that does not know its purpose.

  Common in drug studies that involve placebo drugs - analysis of participant behaviour will be biased
• Observational techniques involve observing actual behaviours which are subsequently scored.

  A key challenge that is encountered by the researcher though is deciding what to look for and how to decide what constitutes a particular behaviour.

  The behaviours that the researcher is interested in need to be clearly defined (operationalised) so that the observer knows what to look out for and measure; eventually these can be counted up to produce a score.
• Observations are a non-experimental method of research. It is a method of investigation where the researchers watch behaviour without interfering or manipulating the situation. Observations can produce both qualitative and quantitative data.
• Observations have the benefit of being able to capture participants' true behaviours and allow special insight into human behaviour. This kind of research is open to observer bias, as the interpretations the researcher makes can be affected by their expectations. Observations also often cannot demonstrate casual relationships, as variables are not manipulated. 
• Natural observations - observations take place in a realistic setting, where the behaviour is typically seen

  STRENGTHS

  High ecological validity as the researcher records naturally occurring behaviour in a natural environment, without any outside interference from the researcher. May produce findings that can be readily applied to everyday life

  LIMITATIONS

  Cannot be replicated to check reliability, as the researcher is not in control of variables.

  extraneous/ confounding variables may occur internal validity may be lowered
• Controlled observations - some variables of the observation are controlled, and typically participants are aware of the observation

  STRENGTHS

  Can be replicated to check reliability, as the researcher is in control of variables and therefore can repeat the method as they wish

  LIMITATIONS

  Low ecological validity as the researcher records behaviours in an artificial (manipulated) environment, with potential outside interference from the researcher.
• Covert observations - participant is unaware they are being observed

  STRENGTHS

  Investigator effects are unlikely meaning that participants’ behaviour will be genuine.

  Reduces the potential of demand characteristics

  LIMITATIONS

  Less ethical as participants are not aware they are taking part and cannot give fully informed consent
• Overt observations - participants know they are being observed

  STRENGTHS

  It is possible to inform participants in advance and obtain informed consent.

  LIMITATIONS

  Behaviour can be distorted through investigator effects in which the participant changes their behaviour through social desirability bias

  ‘Please you’/ ‘screw you’ effect, social desirability 
• Participant observation - observer joins in activities and behaves like a participant

  STRENGTHS

  The researcher can obtain in-depth data as they are in close proximity to the participants and so are unlikely to overlook or miss any behaviours - increases external validity

  LIMITATIONS

  The researchers’ presence might influence the participants’ behaviour due to evaluation apprehension

  Researchers may come to identify too strongly with those they are studying and lose objectivity.

  Potential guilty knowledge
• Non-participant observation - observer remains separate to the activities 

  STRENGTHS

  Investigator effects and evaluation apprehension are less likely as the researcher is not visible.

  Researcher maintains an objective psychological distance from participants

  LIMITATIONS

  Due to a lack of proximity the researcher might overlook or miss behaviours of interest.

  May lose valuable insight 
• Structured observation - using pre-determined lists of behaviours and sampling methods to record behaviour

  STRENGTHS 

  More straightforward to record

  Easier to analyse - quantitative data

  LIMITATIONS

  Lack of depth
• Unstructured observation - recording everything of interest that the researcher sees

  STRENGTHS

  Rich and in depth data

  LIMITATIONS

  Tend to produce quantitative data

  Researcher has to have a good memory and recording skills
• Structured observations use a number of systems to record behaviour which consists of behavioural categories and sampling procedures

  Behavioural categories - these are used to determine what behaviours are being recorded

  Sampling procedures - these are used to determine how/when the behaviours are recorded

  Observing behaviour can be very subjective and vague, so categories are needed to give observers a checklist to work with
• Continuous recording : used in unstructured interviews, noting down all behaviours
• Event sampling: counts the number of times a particular behaviour occurs
• Time sampling: involves recording behaviour at specific time i.e every 30s

  For continuous behaviour
• Time sampling involves recording behaviour at specific time intervals. During the five minute period, the researcher could record which behaviour categories each pre-school child was exhibiting. Behaviour categories could include playing with [specific toy] or crying. When one of these behaviours are seen at the time interval, the researcher will tally what’s going on but only at this time interval. Any behaviour seen out of this time frame can not be recorded
• You should not conduct an observation alone. 2 or more

  Agree on behavioural categories before observing 

  Watch same behaviour at the same time

  Then compare their checklists afterwards and measure the number of agreements

  Reliable, must end up with +0.80
• Interviews are another form of self-report research

  Unlike questionnaires, interviews involve a communication/discussion/dialogue between the interviewees and interviewers

  Traditionally interviews have been conducted face to face but they can also be completed over the phone or through video calls
• ev of interviews

  Strengths

  Allows the researcher to build a rapport with the interviewee, so they may build trust and be willing to be honest in their answers

  Data can be more qualitative and allow researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the topic.

  Limitations

  Can be very time consuming to conduct and analyse, resulting in a lower sample size, and

  therefore lower population validity as the sample is unrepresentative.

  There is a risk of researcher bias in analysing the qualitative data given.
• Structured Interviews

  This type of interview is made up of a set of pre-determined questions that are asked in a fixed order. The interviewer is unable to make any changes to the questions themselves, or the order in which they are asked to the interviewee. The best way to think of it is that it is identical to a questionnaire, but it is conducted face-to-face in real time.

  Strength: Simple and easy to replicate

  Weakness: Lacks depth and detail due to fixed structure
• Unstructured Interviews

  Unlike structured interviews, unstructured interviews have no set questions to ask. Instead, interviewers have a general topic or aim to discuss with the interviewee, with the intention for the interview to be more like a conversation.

  Strength: More rich in depth and detail, gaining valuable insight

  Weakness: Bigger risk of researcher bias in conducting the interview and analysing the data
• Semi-structured Interviews

  This type of interview has a formalised set of questions that are asked, but unlike structured interviews, the interviewer has the freedom to ask new, follow-up questions during the interview in response to answers given by the interviewee. There is a general framework, but with more flexibility.
• Interview schedules (the list of questions and prompts) should be standardised to reduce bias.

  Interviews should be conducted in a quiet room, with minimal interruptions, to allow a rapport to be built and the interviewee to feel more relaxed.

  Interviewees should be regularly reminded that their answers will be confidential, which is particularly important when the topics of discussion are sensitive
• Correlations illustrate the strength and direction of an association/relationship between two or more co-variables

  This relationship is demonstrated on a scatter graph with one co-variable on each axis 

  Two variables without any manipulation from the researcher. Infers they are linked

  Experimental research investigates the impact one variable that we change has in the variable we measure. Infers one caused the other
• Correlation between co variables can be positive, negative or zero

  Zero correlation - theres no relationship

  Positive - directly proportional 

  Negative - inversely proportional

  +0.2 weak positive

  +0.8 strong positive

  1 - perfect positive

  0 - no correlation

  -1 perfect negative

  -0.8 strong negative
• Correlation Strengths

  Good starting point to first use assess possible patterns between variables before conducting experimental research 

  Precise measure of how two variables are related

  Cost-effective - correlational research can be quick and economical to conduct, especially when the data is already pre-existing
• Correlation Weaknesses

  Can’t tell us why.

  Sometimes there can be intervening variables that have caused the change to one or both CVs. follow up research is always necessary to understand the cause and effect between the variable 

  Can have negative implications - misused or misinterpreted 

  Presented as casual which can lead to various social issues such as discrimination or labelling
• peer review

  Psychological researches published primarily through academic journals but before it can be published it must be subjected to a peer review

  This involves all aspects of the research being scrutinised or checked by a small group of experts in that particular field. These experts are expected to be entirely objective and be unknown to the researcher
• Peer review happens to allocate funding 

  Independent peer evaluations often take place in order to determine if a proposed research project can be awarded funding. This is often conducted by third parties to determine if a project is worthwhile
• Peer review validates the quality and relevance of the research

  All aspects of the research are assessed for their accuracy and quality such as the formulation of hypotheses, methodology chosen, statistical tests used and conclusions drawn.
• Peer reviews suggest amendments or improvements

  Reviewers may suggest minor revisions and therefore improve the overall report. They could also conclude that the work is inappropriate for publication and should be withdrawn
• evaluation of peer reviews

  • reviewers are expected to remain anonymous, which is thought to lead to more honest appraisal This is an opportunity for reviewers to heavily criticise a rival researcher. many researchers are often in competition for funding
  • Journal editors have a natural tendency to want to publish findings that are significant and ‘headline grabbing’. This could lead to research with non-significant results or research that is not deemed exciting to be ignored/disregarded. By doing this, valuable insight is lost and it can lead to a false impression of psychology research
• Established scientists are the ones most likely to be chosen as reviewers 

  Peer review process may suppress any research that opposes mainstream theories in order to maintain the status quo. Reviewers tend to be particularly critical to research that challenges their own view and favour research that supports it, this means new, innovative research is less likely to be passed, therefore slowing down the rate of change in some fields of research
• When considering the value of psychological research, one has to consider the implications it can have for the wider country

  This can be demonstrated by improving employees productivity, wellbeing, reducing expenses on mental health
• Explain 2 criticisms of the peer review process?

  Competition - This could however be seen by the reviewers as an opportunity to heavily criticise a rival researcher. This is particularly important as many researchers are often in competition for funding

  Publication bias - Reviewers tend to be particularly critical to research that challenges their own view and favour research that supports it, this means new, innovative research is less likely to be passed, therefore slowing down the rate of change in some fields of research
• Case studies are detailed in depth analyses of individuals, groups, institutions or events. They typically involve the analysis of unusual event or individuals but can also include more ‘typical’ cases

  Case studies uses a range of methods to build a case history if the individual which may also include traditional experimental research/testing as well

  Case studies take place over a long period of time, These kid of studies will often involve gathering additional data from friends and family as well as the individual being studied
• case studies

  Strengths

  Rich insight into an individual and any changes over time - cause and effect

  Necessary when variables are difficult/unethical to manipulate

  Can be helpful in stimulating new research - prompt more research into findings

  Weaknesses

  Very time consuming, gathering and analysing data

  Difficult to replicate and generalise - unique situation

  Large risk of researcher bias - attachment