Research Methods

Theory must contain testable hypothesis for validity - can also falsify hypothesis

A process scientists follow exact procedures carefully in order to verify original results/demonstrate validity and re-affirm results

Not effected by expectations of researcher- ideally X is created in controlled environmentssuch as a lab

Direct testing through observation or testing rather than unfounded beliefs and claims that are not backed up by any proof (freud/evolutiona

Making a theory after a natural phenomenon e.g Newton with the apple dropping from tree/gravity

Starts with a theory, then look for evidence to confirm such theory

A way to find the truth in a hypothesis by attempting to disprove it (null hypothesis) if you cant then alternative

Consistency of measure - the ability to repeat a study and obtain the same result - must keep all conditions same

One way to test reliability, the extent two or more observers produce the same record/extent they agree

One way to test reliability - where a person is tested then retested after an interval of time

Whether researcher tested what was ment to be tested - effected by any extraneous variables?

Extent to which the results of the study can be generalised to other situations and real people e.g field/natural not lab

is established by comparing performance on new test with previous test - can be used for questionnaires

states a direction - the results of the experiment 'will' do X

does not state a direction, the results of the experiment should show 'a difference'

hypothesis you try to prove wrong, if not possible take alternative hypothesis

a hypothesis that makes it clear and precise how the experiment is conducted including all details for future retests

a variable you intentionally change to compare results to another variable

the variable that is effected, thus is the one you measure

any other variable that contributes to experiment that is note the IV or DV

Controlled environment experiment - low extraneous variables due to high control of IV+DV but low extern val/generalise+investigator effect

When participents are not usually aware of being observered/used in a study- high ecolog valid, low investigator effect but lack of control

Uses an existing independent variable, does nothing to control the variable- high ecog val, low control so more extraneous

set of procedures to control influence of factors/variables

Participants allocated to groups representing different conditions

Participants takes part in every condition, all the IV's

paired participants matched in terms of key variables such as age or iq

In depth detail study on individual hard to generalise/replicate normally longitudinal

a relationship between two variables, does not establish cause and effect just show statistics good for large data but low validity

when behaviour is observed indirectly through secondary research in written or verbal material books - look for patterns/themes to analyse

combines results of many studies on same topic for an overal conclusion

interview where questions are decided in advance - social desirability bias espec with open questions

interview has aims but interviewees answer guides the next questions - useful for studies about peoples past/psychodynamic

selecting participants most available at the time - bias to population especially during certain times of day

randomly choosing participants using a technique e.g manual hat or computerised programme- not biased but no variables controlled

participants selected to represent a frequency of the population and put into sub groups til quota is filled - time consuming/biased

obtaining representative sample by choosing every 5th/10th person - only random if you choose first randomly - no variables controlled

participants have volunteered to be in a sample - biased only high motivated people with free time/students

identify particpants by going through similar people and asking them to lead to more particiapnts - time consuming and population biased

Takes part in a study but not a participant, has a role and told what to do before hand, may be the IV

assessment of scientific work by others who are experts in the same field, ensures research published is of high quality- help prevent fault

like a brief/summary - allows others to quickly identify with the study and match purposes for it - includes aims,hypothesis,methods,results

intended research and why researched may include research by other theories and a hypothesis

detailed description of what was done, enough to replicate the study - contains testing environmen, procedures to collect data + any briefs

Researcher offers explanations of behavior observed and considers implications of results, making suggestions for future research

when publication tends to publish only positive results, editors want attention to their journal

sceience is resistant to large shifts of opinion, peer reviews prefer existing theory as takes long time for new revolution to be accepted

tells us about the central/middle/average values for data

calculated by adding all of the scores then dividing by number of scores, makes use of all value but effected by extreme data

is the middle value in an ordered list, not effected by extreme data but does not make use of all values, only the middle

is the most common number, appropriate for data in categories but can be used for all kinds of data (verbal), not useful if several modes

Informs us about the spread of data

Calculated by finding the difference between highest and lowest score in a set of data - easy to calculate but affected by extreme values

Expresses the spread of the data around the mean - more precise than range as it takes all values in, but extreme values effect

allow us to easily see the results at a glance, also good for comparing different sets of data

bars do not touch - useful for independent data that are not related - easier to see but suitable for words and numbers/all measurements

bars do touch - useful for matched pairs (related) data as easy to compare but suitable for words and numbers/ all measurements

suitable for correlational data, scattered dots, if airplane lift off =positive correlation, plane crash=negative, no pattern= zero correla

Advantages are easier to analyse as it is in numbers so produces neat conclusions but it oversimplifies reality and human experience

provides rich detail, represents true complextity of human behaviour, insight to thoughts/feelings but hard to draw conclusion, subjective

British Psychology Society not allow social sensitive research, ethical committees are used to assess research proposal/ stick to code

participants should not be psychologically or physically harmed and must feelsafe/protected

participants right to control flow of information about themselves

participants right to be fully informed about why research is needed and experimentprocedures for informed decision to agree with roles

when participants are aware they always have the right to leave the study if felt at uncomfort/unease

participants right to have all personal information about self protected from the public

when participants are not told the true aims of a study- needed to be done if it will effect the IV thus change behavior of participants

used when participants have been deceived from true information, done after experiment so no possible psychological harm/confusion

Psychologists should maintain high standards of proffesional work when conducting experiment

Psychologists hold repsonsibility to debrief/protect from harm physically and psychologically when done with experiment

Psycologists should always be honest and accurate, and report all findings including limitations/faults

if results produce a greater good for society such as health benefits as they have no responsibility + not respond to emotional pain

1 Use of minimal animals, 2 alternative methods when possible, 3 use improved techniqe to reduce stress/pain to animals

Hypothesis predict correlation between 2 variables, data is related ordinal/interval - uses scattergram

hypothesis predict difference between 2 variable, data is nominal and independent+needs contingency table of results

hypothesis predict difference between 2 variable, data is ordinal/interval and independent separate groups

Hypothesis predicts difference between two sets of data, data is ordinal/interval and must be related from one person/match pairs

allow psychologists to know if particular pattern of results have risen by chance, if not then it is significant data

stringent 1% chance for new drugs -industry standard 5% possibility - new research is lenient 10% possibility

data measured using units of equal intervals, e.g CM+timed experiments, = objective and accurate=good for science

data is separate categories qualitative= grouping people tall, medium, short

data ordered in some way e.g people in order of height/shoe size

rejecting null hypothesis that is true, more likely to happen if significance level too high/lenient=0.10

accepting a null hypothesis that isn't true, more likely to happen if significance level too low/stringent 0.01

used when hypothesis is directional, dog can go one way

used when hypothesis is non directional - dog can go two ways

expand/elaborate fully, precise intentions/method shown so can be easily tested and replicated using

when you make all variables in the same condition, admirable so no extraneous variables

small difference/correlation

Major difference/correlation