PPs identify subtle cues as to the behaviour the experimenter expects to happen so the PPs may act a certain way
Social Desirability Bias
PPs may lie and give answers expected of them instead of what they truly believe
Investigator Effects
Any effect of the investigator’s behaviour on the research outcome. This may include everything from the design of the study to the selection and interaction with PPs during the research process
EthicalIssues
When a conflict exists between the rights of PPs in research studies and the goals of research to produce authentic data
BPScodeofethics
Instructs psychologists in the UK about what behaviour is acceptable when dealing with PPs
Informed Consent
Involves making PPs aware of the aims and their rights (including the right to withdraw)
From the researcher’s point of view, asking for informed consent may make the study meaningless because behaviour will not be ‘natural’ as they know the aims of the study
What is Deception?
Deliberatelymisleading or withholdinginformation from PPs at any given point of the experiment
Deception
Deception means deliberately misleading or withholding information from PPs at any stage of the investigation
PPs who have not received adequate information cannot be said to have given informed consent
Deception can be justified if it does not cause the PP distress
Protection from harm
PPs should not be placed at any more risk than they would be in their daily lives and should be protected from physical and psychological harm
The latter includes being made to feel embarrassed, inadequate or being placed under undue stress or pressure
PPs should be reminded that they have the right to withdraw from the investigation at any point
Confidentiality
PPs have the right to control information about themselves
This is the right of privacy
If this is invaded then confidentiality should be protected
Confidentiality refers to our right under the Data Protection Act, to have any personal data protected
Dealing with informed consent
PPs should be issued with a consent letter or form detailing all relevant information that might affect their decision to participate.
For investigations involving children under 16, a signature of parental consent is required
Dealing with deception and protection from harm
PPs should be given a full debrief and be made aware of the true aims of the investigation and any details they were not told
PPs should also be told what their data will be used for and must be given the right to withdraw during the study and the right to withhold data
PPs may have natural concerns related to their performance within the investigation and should be reassured that their behaviour was normal
If PPs have been subject to stress or embarrassment they may require counselling
Dealing with confidentiality
If personal details are held these must be protected
It is more usual to simply record no personal details i.e. maintain anonymity
Researchers usually refer to PPs using numbers or initials when writing up the investigation
It is standard practice that during briefing and debriefing PPs are reminded that their data will be protected and that it will not be shared with others
Peer Review
The assessment of scientific work by others who are specialists in the same field, to ensure that any research intended for publication is of high quality
The main aims of peer review
To allocate research funding- Independent peer evaluation also takes place to decide whether or not to award funding for a proposed research project. This may be co-ordinated by government-run funding organisations
To validate the quality and relevance of research- All elements of research are assessed for quality and accuracy
To suggest amendments or improvements- Reviewers may suggest minor revisions of the work and improve the report. In extreme circumstances, they may conclude that the work is inappropriate for publication and should be withdrawn
AO3 Peer Review: Anonymity
It is usual practice that the ‘peer’ doing the reviewing remains anonymous as this is likely to produce a more honest response
But a minority of reviewers may use their anonymity as a way of criticising rival researchers especially as many are in direct competition for limited research funding
Some journals favour a system of open reviewing whereby the names of the reviewer are made public
AO3 Peer Review: Publication Bias
It is a natural tendency for editors of journals to want to publish ‘headline grabbing’ findings to increase the credibility and circulation of their publication
They also prefer to publish positive results
This could mean that research which does not meet these criteria is ignored or disregarded which creates a false impression of the current state of psychology if journal editors are being selective in what they publish
AO3 Peer Review: Burying ground breaking research
The peer review process may stop research in particular scientific fields
Reviewers tend to be especially critical of research that contradicts their own view and much more favourable to that which matches it
Established scientists are the ones more likely to be chosen as reviewers
As a result, findings that chime with current opinion are likely to be passed as innovative research that challenges the established order so peer review may have the effect of slowing down the rate of change within a particular scientific discipline
Example of implications of research for the economy
Health- funding research on memory loss on dementia
Education
Leisure- councils spending money on bike lanes to encourage cycling
Law and order- more officers to prevent crime on the streets
Research that has implications for the economy: Schaffer and Emerson
Babies form attachments with adults who are sensitive to their needs
Babies form multiple attachments from 10 months onwards
The father is a key attachment figure
Both parents can take it in turns to look after the baby initially and the mother can return to work knowing that the child is happy to attach to others contributing to the workplace and the family unit financially
Research that has implications for the economy: Loftus and Palmer
The research investigated the reliability of eyewitness testimony using leading questions
Understanding how to question witnesses means that it is less likely that an innocent person is sent to prison due to faulty eyewitness identification
Miscarriages of justice are expensive for society as they involve the trial, the cost of keeping someone in prison, the appeal , a re-trial and possible financial compensation for the wrongly accused
Research that has implications for economy: Treatments
Absence from work costs the economy an estimated £15 billion a year with a third of all absences are caused by mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety
Psychological research into the causes and treatments of mental disorders has an important role
Patients are able to be assessed quickly and gain swift access to treatment and many conditions are treated through the use of drugs such as SSRIs for depression and OCD
Referrals can also be made by GPs for psychotherapies such as systematic desensitisation or CBT
Paradigm
A set of shared assumptions and agreed methods within a scientific discipline
Paradigm Shift
The result of scientific revolution where there is a significant change in the dominant unifying theory within a scientific discipline
Objectivity
All sources of personal bias are minimised to not distort or influence the research process
Empirical Method
Scientific approaches that are based on the gathering of evidence through direct observation and experience
Replicability
The extent to which scientific procedures and findings can be repeated by other researchers
Falsifiability
The principle that a theory cannot be considered scientific unless it admits the possibility of being proved false
Paradigms and paradigms shifts
Kuhn suggests that what distinguishes scientific disciplines from non-scientific disciplines is a shared set of assumptions and methods
Psychology is best seen as a pre-science as it lacks a universally accepted paradigm
Psychology has too much internal disagreement and too many conflicting approaches
Theory construction and hypothesis testing
Theory is a set of general laws or principles that have the ability to explain particular events or behaviours
Theory construction is gathering evidence through direct observation
Theories should be scientifically tested and should suggest a number of possible hypotheses
They should be tested using systematic and objective methods
Falsifiability origins
Popper argued that a theory should be falsifiable and that genuine scientific theories should hold themselves up for hypothesis testing and possibility of being proven false
When a scientific principle had been successfully repeated it is not necessarily true it just hasn't been proved false yet
This is why alternative hypothesis must always be accompanied by a null hypothesis as it allows to falsify the hypothesis
Replicability origins
Findings should be repeated across a different number of contexts and circumstances
Replication has an important role in determining the validity of a finding as by repeating the study we can see if findings can be generalised
Objectivity and empirical method
Researchers must not let personal biases ruin the data
Lab experiments that have control are objective
Empirical method is emphasising the importance of data collection based on direct sensory experience
The experimental method and observational method are examples
Scientific Report
Presents the findings of a piece of research which has been designed, conducted and then analysed by one or more researchers
What is in a scientific report?
Includes an abstract ( summarypiece of research explaining the whole thing and if the first part of the report), method which has the sample, design, the materials and the procedure
The results which presents the findings
A discussion which then includes evaluation
Referencing must be done
Reliability
Refers to how consistent the findings from an investigation are
Test-retest reliability
A method of assessing the reliability of something by assessing the same person on two separate occasions and attempts to show whether results are same both times
Inter-observer reliability
The extent to which there is agreement between 2 observers in observing behaviour
What is the number for having high-inter observer reliability?
+0.8
Test-retest method
Is doing the same test or questionnaire but has to be done at a period of time after so they don't recall their answers
Then the two test scores should be correlated to see if they are significant and if they are it is reliable