Research Methods

Science
Objectivity scientists strive to be objective in their observations and measurements so their
expectations should NOT affect they way they record findings (this would lead to SUBJECTIVE reporting).

Theory construction one aim of science is to record facts, but an additional aim is to use these
facts to construct theories, which help us understand and predict the natural phenomenon around us. A theory is a collection of general principles that explain observations and facts.

Hypothesis testing- forming a null and an alternative [experimental] hypothesis at the outset,
which is fully operationalisable In other words it contains reference to the IV and the DV [if it is an experiment]; OR both key variables [if it is a correlation study]

Empiricism information is gained through direct observation or experiments rather than by a

reasoned argument or unfounded beliefs (i.e. a hunch)

Replicability one way to demonstrate the validity of any observation is to repeat it. If the
outcome is the same, this confirms the truth of the original results, especially if two or more people discover the same end results. To allow for such precise replication, researchers must record their method carefully, so that the same procedures can be followed in the future. Peer Review -The assessment of scientific work by others who are experts in the same field -The intention of is to ensure that any research conducted and published is of high quality - generally unpaid - usually several reviewers for each article/assessment - Their task is to report on the quality of the research - their views are considered by a peer review panel - If peers agree, then an article may be published. Articles CANNOT be published prior to peer review. - Allocation of research funding research is paid for by government and charitable bodies, and we have a duty to spend their money responsibly - public bodies require reviewers to enable them to decide which research is likely to be worthwhile. - Publication of research in scientific journals and books scientific journal provide scientist with an opportunity to share the results of their research with others work is peer reviewed as a mean of preventing incorrect or faulty data entering the public domain.
Unachievable ideal sometimes you cant find another expert to review your data Publication bias peer review tends to favour the publication of positive results - editors want research that has important implications in order to increase the standing of their journal

Conventions for reporting psychological investigations abstract A summary of the study covering the aims, hypotheses, methods, results and conclusions Introduction /aim What the researcher intends to investigate. This often includes a review of previous research (theories and or studies) explaining why the researcher intends to conduct this particular study. The researchers may state his/her research predictions and a hypothesis/ hypotheses method A detailed description of what the researcher did, providing enough information for replication of the study. Included in this section is information about pps (the sample), the testing environment, the procedures used to collect data, and any instructions given to pps before (the brief) and afterwards (the debrief) results This section contains what the researcher found, often called statistical data, which includes descriptive statistics, (tables, averages, graphs) and inferential statistics (the use of statistical tests to determine how statistically significant the results are) Raw data (individual pp scores ) DO NOT appear here they go in the appendix section discussion The researcher offers explanations of the behaviours observed in the study, and might also consider the implications of the results and make suggestions for future research references The full details of any journal articles or books that are mentioned in the report appendices Apparatus, scripts used, raw data, consent forms, pp responses, calculations for mean, standard deviation, statistical test, etc

Experimental methods lab Description -An experiment conducted in a controlled environment field -Investigating casual relationships in more natural surroundings natural -IV is no directly manipulated or controlled by the experimenter Strengths -high in terms of internal validity because many EVs can be controlled. -Control also increases Replicability, which is desirable -It may be possible to control EVs -Experimenter effects reduced as pps are often not aware of being in a study -Can draw casual conclusions -Higher ecological validity -Avoid some participant effects weaknesses -Some EVs, such as experimenter effects and demand characteristics may reduce internal validity. -Control reduces external validity as a highly controlled situation may be less like everyday life -Less control -More time consuming -Cause and effect cannot be inferred as the IV has not been directly manipulated -Ps are not randomly allocated to conditions, which may reduce validity -Allows research where IV cant be manipulated -Enables psychologists to study real problems

Experimental designs Repeated measures Description -Each pp is tested in all conditions of the study (i.e. Loftus & Palmer car crash study) -Same Ps in each condition Strengths -Good control for participant variables -Fewer ps needed weaknesses -Order effects (boredom/practice) -Ps guess the purpose -No chance for order effects as pps are only used once , so no opportunity to practice -Needs more Ps -Lacks control of participant variables -No order effects -Participants variables partly controlled -VERY difficult and time consuming to accurately match up all pps even if using identical twins, environmental factors may lead to differences Independent measures -Two (or more) groups of Ps one for each condition Matched pairs -Ps matched on key variables

Non-experimental methods

Self report methods

- Easily repeated in exactly the same way than unstructured interviews - problem for self report methods is honesty - social desirability bias means that respondents may provide answers to put themselves in a good light Open questions provide rich insight but are difficult to analyse

Questionnaires and interviews to find out what people think and feel - Interviews are essentially real time, face-to-face (or over the phone) questionnaires option to conduct a fairly unstructured interview where the questions are developed by the interviewer as a response to the earlier answers given by the interviewee Watch what people do A lot of information to collect Psychologists use behavioural categories to record particular instances of behaviour and sampling methods such as recording behaviour every 30 seconds (time sampling) or every time a certain behaviour occurs (event sampling) some studies are concerned with the relationship between two variables Use

Observational studies

- Provide a rich picture of what people actually do (rather than what they say they do) - observers may be biased (observer bias) their observations can be affected by their expectations.

Correlation analysis

- does not demonstrate a cause - is useful in

identifying where relationships between covariables exist - Can be done with large data sets and can be easily replicated there may be unknown variables that can explain why the co-variables being studies are linked together

correlation analysis

Case studies

Difficult to generalise from individual cases as each one has unique characteristics.

detailed study of a single individual, institution or event - uses information from a range of sources, such as from the person concerned, and also from their family and friends Use interviews, psychological tests and observations Generally longitudinal

Pilot studies - A small scale trial run of a research study to test any aspects of the design Reliability Inter-rater reliability Test-retest reliability Where two psychologists produce the same outcome Where a person is given a questionnaire/interview/test on one occasion and then this is repeated again after a reasonable interval if the measure is reliable the outcome should be the same every time.

Validity Ecological/external validity Concerns outside a study the extent to which the results of the study can be generalised to other situations and people. Your SATS results at age 11 are used to predict your GCSE success at age 16. Your GCSE average scores are used to predict your A level success, and so on. Concerns things going on inside a study whether the researcher did test what they intended to test.

Predictive validity

Content/internal validity

Sampling technigues Description -every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected e.g. taking names out of a hat/random name selector -Consists of those Strength -Potentially unbiased Weakness -Needs to be drawn from a large population to be unbiased

Random

Opportunity

-Easy and quick

-Very biased may be

Volunteer

people available to the researcher e.g. approaching people in the street Participants selfselect volunteer to take past e.g. by advertising

certain type of person around (students/workers) -Access to a variety of ps -Volunteer bias certain types of people may volunteer

Ethical issues Informed consent Confidentiality Deception Debriefing Protection of ps Withdrawal -Aims of research must be made clear to the Ps and they consent to it anything that may influence their participation must be disclosed -If confidentiality cannot be assured this must be disclosed Data protection act -Information must not be withheld from ps ps should not be mislead -Following an investigation ps should be fully informed in the nature of the research their experiences should be discussed -Ps must be protected from mental an psychological harm -Ps have the right to withdraw at any time

Probability and significance -Experimental (alternative) hypothesis There will be a significant difference between the conditions or a significant relationship between variables. -Null hypothesis States there will be no difference or relationship. -P = probability The smaller the value of P the more likely we can accept experimental hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis. -If P = 0.9 = 90% chance something is down to chance -In psychology we need to be 95% certain our results were not by chance so to accept experimental hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis p 0.05 = 5% chance results were down to chance. Type 1 error -Mistake of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true made mistake by accepting experimental hypothesis A very strict P value makes this kind of mistake less likely. -Mistake of accepting null hypothesis when it is false- should have rejected it Strict P value makes this mistake more likely.

Type 2 error

Statistical tests Nominal data Ordinal data Data belongs to one group OR another Data is ranked in order E.g. smoker/non-smoker, Male/female E.g. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Independent measures Repeat measures / matched pairs Correlational

Nominal data CHI SQUARED -

Ordinal data MANN WHITNEY WILCOXON SPEARMANS RHO

Looking for Difference between 2 conditions Relationship between 2 variables

Mean

How is it calculated Add up all values and divide by number of values

Strengths Makes use of all the data

Median

Middle value from an ordered list

Not effected by extreme scores

Mode

Most common value in a data set

Useful when data in categories

Range

Standard deviation

Calculated by finding the difference between the highest and lowest scores in a data set The spread of data around the mean

Easy to calculate

Weaknesses Can be unrepresentative of all data as it is affected by extreme values Can be misinterpreted if there are extreme values Not appropriate for nominal data Not as sensitive as the mean not all values are reflected in the median Not appropriate for nominal data Not useful when there are several modes Only measure suitable for nominal data May be effected by extreme values

More precise as all values of data are taken into account

Some characteristics of the data are not expressed e.g. the influence of extreme values

Graphs Bar charts Height of bar chart represents frequency suitable for words and numbers Scattergram/scattergraph Suitable for all correlational data dot or cross is shown for each pair of values shows positive/negative correlation if there is no detectable pattern there is zero correlation. Critical / Observed values Observed value = result of statistical test Critical value = found from table Directional hypothesis = one tailed Non-directional hypothesis = two tailed Statistical test SPEARMANS RHO CHI SQUARED MANN WHITNEY WILCOXON Observed value must be: Equal to or HIGHER than critical value Equal to or HIGHER than critical value Equal to or LOWER than critical value Equal to or LOWER than critical value