*Research methods*

• The experimental method


  • Can establish cause and effect between variables
  • Manipulate an IV to see if there is a change in the DV
  • Create hypotheses which are predictions about the effect that changing the IV will have on the DV
• Lab experiments


  Carried out in a controlled environment, the IV deliberately manipulated

  Strengths:

  • Extraneous variables can be controlled
  • Can establish cause and effect
  • The IV affects the DV

  Weaknesses:

  • Experimental tasks may be unrealistic
  • Participants may show demand characteristics, e.g behaving how they think the experimenter wants them to
• Field experiments


  Carried out in a natural environment, so participnts may not know that they are taking part in an experiment. The IV is still deliberately manipulatedStrengths:

  • Fewer demand characteristics, so behaviour of participants is more natural.
  • Higher ecological validity - results can be generalised to real life

  Weaknesses:

  • Less control over extraneous variables, which may affect results
  • Difficult to replicate exactly, as conditions may be different each time the experiment takes place
• Quasi experiments


  The IV is naturally occuring, so is not manipulated by the researcher

  Strengths:

  • High ecological validity because the IV is naturally occuring

  Weaknesses:

  • No control over IV or extraneous variables, so harder to identify cause and effect
  • Impossible to replicate, as naturally occurring variables cannot be deliberately manipulated
• Naturalistic observation


  Carried out in the field, gives researchers the opportunity to observe natural behaviourStrengths:

  • You may see normal realistic behaviour

  Weaknesses:

  • Lack of control of extraneous variables
• Controlled observation


  An observation where all of the extraneous variables are controlled, usually under laboratory conditionsStrengths:

  • Controls other variables which might impact behaviour

  Weaknesses:

  • Artificial, so there is a lack of ecological validity
• Participant observation


  The researcher is part of, or pretending to be part of, the group that they are observingStrengths:

  • Good vantage point for your observations, you will likely see realistic behaviour

  Weaknesses:

  • Your presence may change the course of events you're observing, especially if it's overt
  • You may become too involved in the group, making it more difficult to be objective with your observations
• Non-participant observation


  The researcher is not part of, or pretending to be part of, the group being studied.

  Strengths:

  • Allows you to remain more objective about what you observe

  Weaknesses:

  • You might not gain the same amount of insight as you would if you were doing a participant observation
• Unstructured observation


  The researcher continuously records and reports behaviour, noting EVERYTHING that happensStrengths:

  • N/A

  Weaknesses:

  • There might be too much going on and too many things to record that the observation isn't successful
  • The data gathered might be too dense and detailed to reveal anything.
  • The data might be difficult to analyse and compare
• Structured observation


  The researcher structures the observation to fit the aim of the investigation. They may use category checklists and coding frames, to record dataStrengths:

  • This approach allows for comparison to be made across each observation and for trends in the data to be easily identified

  Weaknesses:

  • Some potentially important behaviours may be missed
• Covert observation


  The participant does not know that they are being watched

  Strengths:

  • Can observe natural behaviour, especially if its in the field
  • No demand characteristics, cannot react to what they believe the researcher wants, if they don't know that there is a researcher

  Weaknesses:

  • The participant may change their behaviour if they become aware that they are being watched
• Overt observation


  The participant knows that they are being watched, and has either given their consent, or is aware due to the observer's presenceStrengths:

  • Allows consent to be gathered, making it more ethical

  Weaknesses:

  • Demand characteristics may affect the results
• Event sampling


  An event is recorded each time that it occurs. Researchers may use observation schedules, or observation categoriesStrengths:

  • Easy to tally pre-selected behaviours
  • Useful if behaviour only happens occasionally

  Weaknesses:

  • Can miss interesting events if they are not listed
  • May miss behaviours if too many happen at once
• Time sampling


  Point - fixed intervals (e.g every 5 minutes)

  Time - fixed period of time (e.g the first 10 minutes of every hour)

  Strengths:

  • Time between observations to record data
  • Provides snapshots
  • Less observations to make

  Weaknesses:

  • No data from gaps between observations therefore may not be representative
• Evaluation: Behavioural categories


  Strengths:

  • Provide quantitative data, which can be analysed and compared

  Weaknesses:

  • May miss important behaviours that aren't part of the categories, resulting in data that lacks depth
• Coding frames

  • Enable psychologists to analyse qualitative data
  • The researcher observes behaviour, identifies key features of those behaviours, then codes them

  Example:

  • Identify how a child behaves alone
  • Behaviour with an authority figure
  • Behaviour around friends
  • Identify categories of behaviour
  • Note behaviours in the appropriate category
  • Carry out analysis and make comparisons
• Content analysis


  • Coding written or filmed material
  • Cannot breach the ethical guidelines, as the information is public domain
  • Can also be used to code and observe qualitative data and turn it into quantitative data
• Correlations

  Relationship between two variables where changes is one variable go along with changes in the other variable

  Positive correlation - The variables change in the same direction, e.g increase in friend number, increase in happiness (+0.1 -> +1.00)

  Negative correlation - Variables change in opposite direction, e.g class absences increase, and grades decreases (-1.00 -> -0.1)
• Evaluation - Correlation


  Strengths:

  • Quick and easy, they can use preexisting data
  • Can find a relationship in cases where a full study may be unethical
  • Can describe the strength of a relationship

  Weaknesses:

  • Correlations do not equal causation
  • Can be misused, tells us very little beside the fact that a relationship exists, but can be misused to prove a point
• Evaluation - Self report


  Strengths:

  • Can generate both quantitative and qualitative data
  • Structured interviews and questionnaires can be easily replicated to increase reliability
  • Structured interviews and questionnaires can be easily assessed for reliability and improved by removing or changing inconsistent items

  Weaknesses:

  • Participants can be affected by social desirability bias and leading questions
  • Only some people are willing to fill out questionnaires or participate in interviews so may not be representative of the population
• Evaluation - Open questions


  Strengths:

  • Generate qualitative data which can show how and why behaviours occur, so has greater construct validity

  Weaknesses:

  • Qualitative data is time consuming to analyse
  • Can be subjective, due to researcher bias, which can lead to low inter-rater reliability
• Evaluation - Closed questions


  Strengths:

  • Quick and easy to answer, so more participants are likely to do the self-report
  • Larger samples are more likely to occur, increasing generalisability
  • Easier to analyse

  Weaknesses:

  • Generates quantitative detail, which shows what behaviours occur, but not how or why, so has lower construct validity
  • There may be response biases (few people select 'strongly agree' on Likert scales), which lowers the construct validity
• Internal reliability 


  If replicated, would we get the same results again?
• External reliability

  what has been kept consistent? is it the same for all participants?
• Split-half reliability 


  Where a test is split into two and each half is compared to each other to check for consistency
• Inter rater reliability


  Where two or more researchers gain consistent results and agree on the findings
• test retest reliability


  Where a test can be replicated and the same result can be found
• Internal validity


  Does the test measure what it intends to measure? Is everything controlled?
• External validity


  Outside of the test, are these results still true? Can they be applied to other settings and people? Can they be generalised?
• Face validity


  On the surface, does the test appear to be measuring what it intends to measure?
• Construct validity


  The degree to which everything in the test is measuring what it claims to measure
• Concurrent validity


  Where the test is measured against a pre-existing standardised and established test
• Criterion validity


  How well one variable predicts another variable of future performance?
• Population validity


  Do the results from the sample hold true if compared to the target population?
• Ecological validity


  Do the results from the original setting of the study hold true in alternative settings, e.g real-life?
• Temporal validity


  Can the results be applied to different times and places
• Validity & reliability - lab experiment

  Validity

  • High internal validity due to the level of control an experimenter has. This means that extraneous variables can be controlled for
  • Demand characteristics can cause Ps to act unnaturally
  • The tasks and situation can lack mundane realism, meaning low ecological validity
  • A double blind method can increase internal validity

  Reliability

  • Standardised proc and controls allow the study to be replicated
  • Reliability of procedures can be established by using the test-retest method
• Validity & Reliability - Field experiment


  Validity

  • Has higher ecological validity, due to natural setting
  • Ps may experience demand characterstics
  • More extraneous variables - lower internal validity
  • A double blind method can increase internal validity

  Reliability

  • Internal reliability is reduced as the experimenter loses control over the environment
  • Often the experiment is difficult to repeat, reducing the external reliability.
• Validity & Reliability - Quasi experiment


  Validity

  • The experimenter cannot completely control the IV, so there may be extraneous variables that affect the DV
  • Demand characteristics and investigator effects may lead to Ps acting unnaturally
  • A double blind method can increase internal validity

  Reliability

  • Because the variables are not completely under experimenter control, there are issues with replication
  • Using standardised procedures will reduce these issues
• Validity & Reliability - Interviews

  Validity

  • Open questions allow individuals to answer freely, increasing validity
  • Interview questions may not be measuring what they mean to (construct validity)

  Reliability

  • Split-half technique may be used to establish internal reliability
  • test-retest method may be used to establish external reliability
  • Semi structured interviews can be nearly impossible to replicate as each one is unique
  • Structured interviews are easier to replicate