RM + ethics

• Cases for ethics

  Ditzen + Walster
• Cases for RM

  Ditzen (lab)

  Levine (questionnaire).
• Features of a lab study?

  -> Measure/research something hard to do. May be unethical to do using a different RM.

  
  

  - Standardised procedure.

  - Operationalised variables.

  - Participants were randomly allocated to IV group.

  - Highly controlled conditions.

  - Manipulate IV and measure DV.

  - Artificial setting.

  
  

  +

  Measure case + effect.

  Easy to replicate due to standardised and high controls.

  
  

  -

  Demand characteristics - reduce internal validity.

  Low ecological validity - artificial setting.
• Features of a questionnaire? Why use, +/-?

  -> quick and easy to collect data from lots of participants.

  
  

  - Series of questions to gather information.

  - Written interview.

  - Face-to-face, online, telephone or post.

  - Closed (quan) or open (qual) questions.

  
  

  +

  Less social desirability bias.

  Quick + easy + cheap.

  Anonymity.

  Collect large amounts of data.

  Standardised questions = high reliability.

  Good to research sensitive topics.

  Can use filler questions.

  
  

  -

  Social desirability - could lie = low internal validity.

  Closed questions - less data.
• Structure for RM 22marker?

  Intro - what is RM?

  
  

  1) Study 1 (Ditzen - lab)

  List all characteristics of a lab. brief study and why the study would use a lab and not a different RM.

  
  

  +/- of RM

  
  

  2) Study 2 (Levine - questionnaire).

  List all characteristics of questionnaire. Brief study + why they would use a questionnaire rather than a different RM.

  
  

  +/- of RM.

  
  

  Conclusion.
• Ethics for Ditzen?

  Privacy - was breached as couples were told to argue about something personal.

  
  

  Confidentiality - Identities hidden as couples were only described as heterosexual couples.

  
  

  Harm - arguments caused psych harm, which could last longer than the experiments due to the damage being personal. Could cause more arguments at home.
• Ethics for Walster?

  Informed consent - was a volunteer sample, gained through volunteering. However was deceived by not knowing they were in a study and being judged by 4 judges limiting full consent.

  
  

  Right to withdraw - were told they had this, but was deceived as didn't know they were being watched therefore may have acted differently if they knew.

  
  

  Deception - didn't know they were in a study, and didn't know they were being judged on attraction.

  
  

  Anonymity - breached as they were all from same university course (computing).
• Structure for essay 22 marker?

  Intro: What r ethics? BPS? Issue - researcher vs participants. What r personal relationships + why do we research? 2 studies.

  
  

  1) Brief detail of study (ditzen).

  3 ethical considerations - definition, how study links to ethical issue and how it affects researcher + participants.

  
  

  do same for Waltser.

  
  

  Conclusion - link 2 studies, why are ethics important?