Experimenter has full control over what happens in the experiment, environmental factors and instructions are highly controlled, only one factor (independent variable) changes between conditions
Laboratory experiment
High internal validity, highly replicable
May lack external validity, ecological validity, and mundane realism, prone to demand characteristics
Field experiment
Conducted in the real world, natural setting
Field experiment
Increased external validity and ecological validity, reduced demand characteristics
Lack of control over extraneous variables, reduced internal validity
Natural experiment
Levels of independent variable have already happened naturally, researcher just measures change in dependent variable
Natural experiment
Allow research in areas not possible otherwise, high external validity
Lack of control over extraneous variables, reduced internal validity, not replicable
Quasi-experiment
Participants cannot be randomly assigned to different levels of the independent variable
Quasi-experiment
Only way to study certain factors, but confounding variables may exist that differ systematically between conditions
Experimental method
Manipulation of an independent variable (IV) to have an effect on the dependent variable (DV), which is measured and stated in results
Aims
General statement made by the researcher which tells us what they plan on investigating, the purpose of their study
Hypotheses
Precise statement which clearly states the relationship between the variables being investigated
Directional hypothesis
States the direction of the relationship that will be shown between the variables
Non-directional hypothesis
Does not state the direction of the relationship between the variables
Independent variable (IV)
Aspect of the experiment which has been manipulated by the researcher or simply changes naturally to have an effect on the DV
Dependent variable (DV)
Aspect of the study which is measured by the researcher and has been caused by a change to the IV
Experimental condition
Condition where the IV is manipulated
Control condition
Condition where the IV is not manipulated
Operationalisation
Researcher clearly defining the variables in terms of how they are being measured
Extraneous variable
Variable other than the IV that affects the DV but does not vary systematically with the IV
Confounding variable
Variable other than the IV that affects the DV and does change systematically with the IV
Demand characteristics
Cues the researcher or research situation gives that make the participant guess the aim of the investigation
Participant reactivity
Participants acting differently within the research situation from how they would usually act
Investigator effects
Unwanted influence from the researcher's behaviour, either conscious or unconscious, on the DV measured
Randomisation
Use of chance to reduce the effects of bias from investigator effects
Standardisation
Using the exact same formalised procedures and instructions for every single participant
Types of experiments
Laboratory
Field
Quasi
Natural
Population
Group of people from whom the sample is drawn
Sampling methods
Opportunity sampling
Random sampling
Systematic sampling
Stratified sampling
Volunteer sampling
Experimental designs
Independent groups design
Repeated measures
Matched pairs
Pilot study
Small-scale version of an investigation done before the real investigation to identify potential problems
Single-blind procedure
Researchers do not tell participants if they are being given a test treatment or control treatment
Double-blind procedure
Neither the participants nor the researchers know which participants are receiving the test treatment or control treatment
Less of a problem than matching participants in experiments
Matching participants
Time consuming and expensive
A large pool of potential participants is needed which can be hard to get
Difficult to know which variables are appropriate for the participants to be matched
Pilot study
A small-scale version of an investigation which is done before the real investigation is undertaken
Purpose of pilot studies
Allow potential problems of the study to be identified and the procedure to be modified to deal with these
Saves money and time in the long run
Single-blind procedure
A research method in which the researchers do not tell the participants if they are being given a test treatment or a control treatment
Double-blind procedure
A research procedure in which neither the participants nor the experimenter knows who is receiving a particular treatment
Purpose of double-blind procedures
Prevent bias in research results
Prevent bias due to demand characteristics or the placebo effect
Reduce investigator effects as the investigator is unable to unconsciously give participants clues as to which condition they are in
Control group/condition
Sets a baseline whereby results from the experimental condition can be compared to results from this one