Evaluation of Research Methods

• Strengths of Laboratory Experiments

  • high degree of control over extraneous variables: researcher in most cases, is able to prevent extraneous variables from becoming confounding variables therefore provides a high degree of internal validity
  • allow for conclusion about cause and effect to be drawn between the IV and the DV
• limitation of laboratory experiments

  • lack external validity: artificial nature of the environment in which the investigation is taking place means the study can lack ecological validity
  • findings of study therefore can’t be generalised to setting beyond the lab as the tasks often lack mundane realism
  • participants may also be effected by demand characteristics as they know they are being investigated
• strength of field experiments

  • natural setting therefore higher level of ecological validity: results are more likely to be representative of everyday life
  • however because setting is more natural, there is less control over extraneous variables. These can then become confounding variables
  • reduces the ability to establish a cause and effect relationship since other factors could have had an impact on the DV
• limitation of field experiments

  • ethical issues: often participants don’t know they are a participant in a psychological investigation and therefore can‘t give informed consent to take part
  • researcher may follow a breach of their privacy rights and a cost-benefit analysis will need to be conducted before proceeding with any study
• strengths of natural experiment

  • unique insights gained into real-life situations from using this methodology as research can be conducted into areas of psychology that could not be generated for ethical reasons.
  • higher level of external validity compared to lab and field
  • high ecological validity given the real-life issues that are being studied rather than manipulated artificially
• limitations of natural experiments

  • no control over the environment and subsequent extraneous variables which means it is difficult for the researcher to accurately assess the effects of the IV on the DV.
  • may be confounding variables have affected the results so a cause and effect relationship must be drawn with extreme caution
  • naturally occurring event that interests researcjers may only occur very rarely - limits the opportunity to generalise these results to other similar events or circumstances
• limitations of quasi experiments

  • participants can‘t be randomly allocated to research conditions to remove the issue of bias in the procedure
  • IV is naturally occurring therefore the psychologist will be less certain that the IV alone will have caused the effect which measured through the DV
  • methodological issues: when quasi experiments take place under natural conditions, there is no control over the environemnt and subsequent extraneous variables making it difficult to be sure that factors have affected the DV
• strength of covert observations

  • investigator effects are less likely since the investigator is hidden in this type of observation.
  • less chance of demand characteristics occurring whereby the participant tries to guess the aim of the investigation
  • participants‘ behaviour seen will be more natural and representative of their everyday behaviour
• limitation of covert observations

  • there are ethical issues associated with the covert method of observation as participants are not aware they are taking part in an investigation they can’t give fully informed consent or exercise their right to withdraw
• strength of overt observations

  • often more ethical than the covert method since participants are aware that their behaviour is being observed
  • possible to inform them in advance and therefore gain informed consent
• limitation of overt observations

  • possibility of investigator effects as possible for bias to occur whereby the investigation influences the behaviour of the participants in a way which was not intended.
  • participants may change their behaviour and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims
• strength of participant observations

  • researcher can obtain in-depth data and are unlikely to overlook any behaviour that would be missed by an external observer therefore a comprehensive understanding of human behaviour can be achieved using this method of observation
• limitation of participant observation

  • possibility of investigator effects and the impact of the researcher on the other participants’ behaviour in a way which was not intended.
  • participants may change their behaviour and act in accordance with their perception of the research aims
• strength of non-participant observation

  • investigator effects are less likely compared to a participant observation as researcher is often observing at a distance. as a result, the behaviour of the investigator is unlikely to have a negative impact on the behaviour of the participants therefore behaviour observed is more likely to be representative of natural human conduct
• limitation of non-participant observations

  • lack of proximity to the participant behaviour being studied, the researcher might miss behaviours of interest. this means that unique insights which contribute to the understanding of the human behaviour being observed will be overlooked because of not being involved personally
• strength of naturalistic observations

  • higher level of ecological validity can be achieved as behaviour is recorded in its natural environment. this means the behaviour being recorded is likely to be more representative of everyday activities and reflect spontaneous actions that sometimes occur incidentally
• limitation of naturalistic observations

  • issues of reliability as it is difficult to replicate with the exact same conditions. consequently test-retest method cant be used as the researcher is not in control of variables. this means that research attempting to understand human behaviour using naturalistic observations often lacks replicability
• strength of controlled observations

  • they can be replicated to check for reliability as standardised procedures, manipulation of the IV and control over extraneous variables can be repeated by the same, or different, researchers to assess the reliability
• limitation of controlled observation

  • have a lower level of external validity as the high level of control comes at a cost with the setting of the observation feeling quite unnatural as a result. therefore the participants’ behaviour may alter in response meaning that the observation no longer represents real-life occurrences causing ecological validity of the findings to be questionable
• strength of structured observations

  • researcher can compare behaviour between participants and across groups. the use of operationalised behavioural categories makes the coding of the data more systematic. when there is more than one observed, the standardised behaviour schedule results in greater inter-observer reliability
• limitation of structured observations

  • may be problems with ascertaining high internal validity. this is because the researcher may miss some crucial behaviours during the observation. as a result, the findings may not provide the full picture about the behaviour in question as they could lack detail. this is a problem because what was intended to be measured was not achieved in its entirety
• strength of unstructured observations

  • richness of data obtained since behaviour is recorded in great details researchers are able to obtain a comprehensive view of human behaviour. this adds to the internal validity of the observational technique
• limitation of unstructured observations

  • observer bias is an issue due to the lack of objective behavioural categories. this is a problem because the observer many then only record behaviour which is of subjective value to them, and not a valid representation of what is being displayed. therefore problem with inter-observer reliability as there will be a lack of consistency in the observations recorded
• strength of time sampling

  • allows for a better use of time since fewer observations are made
• limitation of time sampling

  • not every behaviour of relevance to the investigation will be counted if it occurs in between the time frames allocated
• strength of event sampling

  • every behaviour of interest to the researcher, in theory, will be counted from the beginning through to the end of the observation
• limitation of event sampling

  • possibility that some behaviours could be missed if there is too much happening at the same time, resulting in some not being coded
• strength of open question questionnaires

  • less chance of researcher bias. Especially true if the questionnaire is also annonymous, since the participants can answer the questions in their own words, without input from the researcher providing a set number of responses.
• limitation of open question questionnaires

  • participants may answer in a socially desirable way, where they try to portray themselves in the best possible light to the researcher. this means that the open response may lack validity as it is not their natural response
• strength of close question questionnaires

  • nature of the data collected which is quantitative makes it easy to analyse the results statistically or in a graphical format. this is useful because direct comparisons can be made between groups of individuals. this means the researcher can look for patterns and trends in the data that can lead to further research being conducted
• limitation of closed question questionnaires

  • by sticking to a predetermined list of questions, the researcher is unable to pursue and explore responses that are of particular interest.
  • closed questions often produce a response bias because the participant doesn’t take the time to read all the questions properly. This means data generated may lack internal validity
• strength of structured interviews

  • quantitative data is produced which is easier to statistically analyse. this is useful because direct comparisons can be made between groups off individuals meaning that the researcher can look for patterns and trends in the data.
  • because questions are standardised and asked in the same sequence every time, the interview is easily replicable to test for reliability
• limitation of structured interviews

  • investigator effects may play a role as the interviewer may bias any responses given to the questions they ask by their tone of voice, intonations, body language and so on. likewise investigator effects can also occur between researchers where there is more than one researcher conducting the interviews
• strength of unstructured interviews

  • increase the validity of findings by significantly reducing the possibility of investigator effects. participants can justify their answers in their own words with opinions rather than trying to guess the aim of the study through any clues given. this is useful because it reduces the possibility of participants displaying demand characteristics in their interview responses
• limitation of unstructured interviews

  • more time consuming and cost you as requires a trained psychologist to administer them
  • statistical analysis can be challenging, as the data collected is qualitative, making it more difficult to identify patterns and trends without undergoing a content analysis first
• strength of semi-structured interviews

  • can increase the validity of findings as the open questions in semi-structured interviews mat encourage the participant to be more honest in their answers, thus reducing social desirability bias as participants are able to justify their answers in their own words with opinions
  • however still remains control over interview compared to an unstructured interview which can result in investigator effects which can affect the behaviour of the participants negatively
• limitation of semi-structured interview

  • higher chance of demand characteristics in comparison to unstructured interviews
• strength of correlational techniques

  • can be used when a laboratory experiment would be unethical as the variables are not manipulated only correlated
  • measures the strength of a relationship between variables, allowing for further research to be conducted
• limitations of correlational techniques

  • not possible to establish cause and effects relationships through conducting a correlation
  • can only identify linear relationships and not curvilinear
• strengths of case studies

  • offers the opportunity to unveil rich, detailed information about a situation. these unique insights can often be overlooked in situations where there is only the manipulation of one variable in order to measure its effect on another
  • case studies can be used in circumstances which would not be ethical to examine experimentally