A-Level Psychology Research Methods

the variable that is manipulated by the experimenter

the variable that is measured by the researcher, which changes as a result of manipulating the IV

variables other than the IV that may have an effect on the DV- participant, situational, experimenter

any variable other than the IV that has not been controlled which already had an effect on the DV

any cue from the researcher/ research situation which may lead to participants changing their behaviour as a result

any effects of the investigator's behaviour on the research outcome

the use of chance in order to control the effects of bias when designing material and deciding the order of conditions- random generation

using the same procedure and instructions for all participants- same environment, instructions and experience

controlled environment setting and control the IV

high control of extraneous variable so any effect on DV is likely a result of manipulation of the IV- cause and effect can be established, high internal validity, possible replication as it is standardised

lacks generalisability due to artificial environment, low external validity, increase in demand characteristics as participants are aware they are being tested, low mundane realism as tasks may not represent real life experience, investigator effects may occur

control the IV within a natural setting

higher mundane realism than lab exp as environment more natural, high ecological validity, more authentic and valid results, high external validity as ptp are unaware they are being study so no demand characteristics

less control of extraneous variables, difficult to repeat, cause and effect difficult to establish, ethical issues as ptp unaware of being studies, cannot consent, invasion of privacy

can take place in both controlled or natural setting, pre-existing IV (can't control) e.g autism

often carried out in controlled conditions- high control of extraneous variable so any effect on DV is likely a result of manipulation of the IV, high internal validity, possible replication as it is standardised

cannot randomly allocate participants (ptp either have condition or not) so may be confounding variables, possible demand characteristics

takes place in both controlled and natural settings, the IV is naturally occuring and can't be manipulated e.g age

provides opportunity for research that may not otherwise be conducter, high external validity as they involve the study of real life issues

naturally occuring event may only happen rarely- reducing opportunity for research, limiting generalisation to other situations, ptp may not be randomly allocated to conditions

how ptp in an experiment will be used

two seperate groups experience two differnet conditions of the experiment

order effects are avoided, less chance of demand characteristics

individual differences/ participant variables between groups- differences due to individuals eg IQ rather than the IV (use random allication), larger amount of ptp requires as one ptp contributes one result so less economical

each ptp takes part in both conditions of the experiment

individual differences/ptp variables avoided, requires fewer ptp

order effects occur- ptp get worse/better due to practice or boredom (use counterbalance ABBA - one half of A first then B second, then one half of B first then A second) demand characteristic are more likely as ptp are exposed to both conditions so may pick up cues

two seperate groups are carefully matched on key criterias/variables

less likely to have demand characteristics, avoids order effects, contols participant variables

ptp can never be matched exactly, very time-consuming to match ptp

each ptp has the same chance of being in one condition or the other- distributes ptp characteristics across the conditions of the experiments by using randome techniques

half the ptp experience the conditions in one order, the other half od ptp experience the condtions in the opposite order- ABBA

a general statement about the investigation

precise testable statement predicting the outcomes of the study

any hypothesis related to an experiment

a hypothesis related to everything else that isn't an experiment which states an outcome of research

no relationship between the two variables being studied

the research heads in a specific way- girls have better exam results than boys

don't know the results of investigations- there is a difference in exam results between girls and boys

group of people who are the focus of the researcher's intrest, from which a small sample is drawn

researcher selects a sample of anyones who is available and willing to participate in their study

convenient, efficient, saves time and effort, easy, costs less, more ethical as researcher can judge if ptp is likely to be upset or too busy

may be unrepresentative of the target population as people who are unavailable and unwilling are ruled out, researcher bias as researcher may choose certain people

every member of the target pop has an equal chance of being selected- complete list of all members of target pop is obtained and put into a computer and a random generator selects sample

no bias as everyone has an equal chance of being selected, sample is likely to represent target pop

time consuming and very difficult especially with large target pop, if you don't have a list of names, ptp may not be available or refuse resulting in bias

reflects the propotions of the target pop by classifying the pop into catergories (strata), ptp are obtained in proportionate to the occurance in the target pop via random selection

avoids bias, designed to accurately reflect the pop, so generalisation is possible, good representation of each group

time consuming dividing sample into strata and the randomly selecting them, detailed knowledge about the pop characteristic required

used predetermined system to select ptp- every nth memeber of target pop selected

avoids bias as the once the researcher picks number, have no control over selection, usually fairly representative, simple proceedure

chance of a sample that would not be representative (unlikely), not objective as researcher may decide on how people are listed or what number was chosen

ptp select themselves to be a part of the sample (self-selection)- researcher may advertise study

easy, little effort, less time consuming

volunteer bias- may attract certain profile of people , increase of demand characteristics as volunteers are eager to please, may affect generalisability

the right to privacy- ptp data should not be disclosed to anyone unless agreed in advance, allocae numbers to ptp instead of using their names, state in breif+debreif that their data will be protected throughout the research process

deliberatly misleading or withholding information from ptp- however there are occasions when deception can be justified if it does not cause the ptp any undue distress- full debreif at the end + reminded of the right to withdraw

ptps should be aware of what they are doing- be aware of aims and methods so they can make informed judgement on whether they want to take part- may cause demand characteristics, signed letter of agreement that contains all relevant details that may affect their descion (under 16s must have consent come from a guardian)

rather than getting consent from the ptps themselves, a similar group of people are asked if the study is acceptable and if agreed then the consent of the original ptps is presumed

ptp give their permission to take place in a number of different studies including one that involves deception so they are consenting to be decieved at some point

ptps are asked for their consent after taking part in the study, during the debrief- they may not have been aware that they were apart of the study or that they were the subject of deception

ptp should be aware they can leave the study at any time or can withdraw their data- can be explained in the brief or debrief

ptps should not be placed in any physical or psychological risk- any harm caused can be adressed in the debrief, councelling should be offered

ptps are told some or all of the conditions of the experiment and what they will be doing in order to gain informed consent

after the experiment the ptps should be told why the experiment was conducted:

• full aim of the study and the conditions- remind the ptps which conditions they took part in

• reassurance that their behaviour was typical/normal -right to withdraw their results

• explain that data will be confidential (numbers not names) -ask if they require councelling -thank them for taking part -ask if theu have any questions

type of non-experiment method

behaviour studied in a natural situation where everything is left as it is normally-e.g observing children playing on a playground

some variables are controlled and manipulated by the observer- reduces naturalness but also reduces extraneous variables-e.g seeing whether children would imitate adult model when playing with toys

observer records everything that happens- video is useful + usually done of small scale

operationalising behaviour into behaviour catagoried and deciding how we will measure the observation

developing a specific behavioural checklist e.g studying affection- kissing, hand-holding, hugging, catagories can't overlap but must be obvious to make data collection more objective

time sampling- observations are made at regular time intervals and coded- reduces the number of observations but may not be representative event sampling- tally chart of specific behaviours- used when behaviour is infrequent and can be missed- if complex the observer may miss imporatant details

observer acts are a part of the grouo being watched

observer does not become part of the group being watched

ptps are unaware they are being observed- secret and undercover

ptps know their behaviour is being observed and have given their informed consent

-all observers involved have a clear idea of what they are observing -use a system for categorising+ recording info -use more than one obserever

the extent to which there is agreement between the observers involved in observation of behaviour -two researchers will observe behaviour at the same time but independently -the findings are compared -correlation amalysis is preformed on the data and using spearman's test a correalation co-efficient of 0.08 should be achieved

consistency and replicability

the most sensible way to study social +groups behaviours, produces a more holistic way of a person's behaviour

well organised observations are difficult and time-consuming, if only one observer then observer bias, not really possible to observe large groups, if people know they are being observed then observer effects/demand characteristics, not possible to establish cause and effect, ethical issues as consent is difficult to gain when observing

a pre-set list of written questions that assess thoughts/ feeling

useful for gathering info on a large group of people

to produce accurate results, it must be worder very carefully, so construction of a reliable questionnaire is difficult as the way the question is worded can produce different results

don't have a fixed range of answers + ptps are free to respond however they want- qualitative data

rich in depth and detail, more flexibility in the way the ptps can answer a question

difficult to analyse in order to draw conclusions that are relevant to the whole group

fixed range of responses- quantitative data

easy to analyse as responses can be reduced to numbers, the data lends itself to statistical analysis and comparisons between groups can be made using graphs and charts

lack depth and detail, does not allow ptps to expand of their answers

face to face converstation/ phone conversation

formal interview with pre-determined questions asked in a fixed order

list of questions prepared in advance but interviewer can ask follow up questions

informal chat with no fixed questions- general aim that certain topics will be discussed, free-flowinf, interviewee is encouraged to expand on their answers

responses may be more truthful than a questionnaire

time consuming, data must be transformed into quantative format to be analysed, risk of interviewee being untruthful for social desirability

easy to replicate- standardised, reliable, targeted questions enables some questions to produce quantative data

can't deviate or elaborate on the topics and answers- lacks depth and validity

more flexibility so interviewer can ask follow up points to gain more insight and understanding increasinf validity, more of a sensitive approach to topics

analysing data is difficult, researcher may have to sift through irrelevant info