practical issues

Cards (26)

  • Lab experiments
    • Lack mundane realism
    • Have low ecological validity
  • Case studies
    • Lack generalisability
    • Collect qualitative data
    • Time consuming (difficult to analyse transcripts and there is no standardised format)
    • Subjective and unscientific
    • Lack of replication
  • Artificial tasks
    • Operationalised variables
    • Lack of task validity
  • Demand characteristics and experimenter effects

    • Counterbalancing
    • Participant design
    • Randomisation
    • Order effects
  • Issues with informed consent e.g. milgram
  • Open and closed questions
    Quantitative vs qualitative data
  • Interviewing vulnerable people e.g children
    • Have a limited attention span so should be avoided
  • Language
    Needs to be appropriate to the group being studied and changed to match age/social class etc
  • Topics of a sensitive nature

    • Questionnaires may be better than interviews as more comfortable being honest
  • Interviewer
    • Gender and age should be appropriate
    • Some people easier to get on with
    • Accent and appearance can affect the rapport built
    • Ethnicity
  • Pilot study
    1. Tests for clarity
    2. Allows the person to be sure that the required information will be gathered
  • Setting up questions
    • Avoid creating response bias
    • Avoid negatives
  • Postal questionnaires

    • Data may not be valid as we can't be sure that the correct person has actually completed the questionnaire
    • May not be representative of the population being studied
  • Deception to prevent demand characteristics e.g milgram
  • Animal studies
    • Evolutionary discontinuity (lack generalisability)
    • Humans more likely to show demand characteristics as they are more aware that they are being conditioned
    • Anthropomorphism
    • Lack ecological validity as often in a lab environment e.g. skinner's rats
  • Structured observations

    • Lack ecological validity as an artificial environment
    • Lack task validity
  • Participant observations
    • e.g working in a mental hospital or joining a cult
  • Brain scans
    • Objective measurement
    • Collate and interpret images to create an overall scan image
    • Brain activity is widespread and complex so may not be able to isolate areas of activity responsible for the behaviour
    • Potentially harmful to patients
    • Not generalisable to all
  • Twin and adoption studies
    • Issues with allocation of zygoticity
    • Hard to separate environmental and genetic factors
    • Children tend to be placed into adoptive families similar to their biological one e.g race and so the adoptive environment is often very similar
  • Qualitative and quantitative data from case studies and interviews
    • Difficult to analyse
    • Conclusions may be unreliable and subjective
  • Case studies
    • Lack generalisability
    • Reliability
    • Researcher bias
  • Primary and secondary data
    Primary data is expensive to collect as you have to find all the materials and participants etc.
  • Longitudinal studies
    • Expensive and time consuming (difficult to replicate)
    • Hard to draw a clear cause and effect relationship as there are many factors changing as time goes on
    • High drop out rates leaving a biased sample which affects validity
    • Clinical psychology is fast developing e.g. drug treatments so by the time a longitudinal study is completed and published the ideas may have already been disproved
  • Cross sectional studies
    • Individual differences have a large effect on conclusions
    • Issues with cohort effects
  • Cross cultural research
    • May not be suitable to repeat the same procedure in different cultures (different understanding of the procedure and therefore different reactions)
  • Meta analysis
    • May be issues with the methods used to gather data
    • Publication bias which may impact upon the validity of the conclusions
    • Research that produces null effects may not be published and so would be ignored in the meta analysis (conclusions would become biased)
    • May include unpublished research but there is increased risk of data not being scrutinised by peer review in the same way