Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Research Methods (case studies (weaknesses (ethical issues such as…

- - - - can provide detail into complex interaction of many factors
  - - - can't be generalised
    - - many cases are easily identifiable because of their unique characteristics
      - brain damage victims can't give informed consent
- - - - one co-variable increases as the other increases
    - - one co-variable decreases as the other increases
    - - ranges from -1 to +1
      - perfect negative correlation = -1
      - perfect positive correlation = +1
      - calculated to see extent of correlation between two co-variables
      - use scatter graphs
    - - states expected association between co-variables
  - - - determining the extent of an association between two variables
        
        cannot infer causality
        
        no control?
    - - a research method where causal conclusions can be drawn because an independent variable has been deliberately manipulated to observe the causal effect
- - - - performed in controlled environment using a standardised procedure
      - strengths
        
        high degree of control
        
        Control of all variables means that DV must be caused by IV
        
        easy to replicate
        
        individual aspects of behaviour can be isolated and tested
      - weaknesses
        
        experimenter bias
        
        researcher's expectations could influence the participant's results
        
        operationalisation
        
        to gain precise measurements the operationalisation of the IV and DV can become too specific i.e. not relating to wider behaviour
        
        low external and ecological validity
        
        Demand characteristics because participants are aware that they are being tested
    - - occur in real world setting where IV is manipulated and as many variables are controlled as possible
      - Strengths
        
        high ecological/external validity
        
        no demand characteristics if participants are unaware that they are being tested
      - Weaknesses
        
        less control
        
        if not demand characteristics there is an ethics issue because of deception
        
        not easy to replicate
        
        participants are not randomly allocated to groups meaning there may be a sample bias
    - - not possible to deliberately manipulate IV
      - IV varies naturally
        
        still could be in a laboratory
      - strengths
        
        used where it would be unethical to manipulate the IV (e.g. romanian orphan studies)
        
        enables psychologists to study "real" problems such as effects of a disaster on health
      - weaknesses
        
        no manipulation of IV means we cannot infer causality
        
        lack of random allocation means that there may be uncontrolled confounding variables
        
        sample studied may have unique characteristics meaning findings can't be generalised
        
        can only be used were conditions vary naturally
        
        participants may be aware of being studied = demand characteristics
    - - IV occurs naturally and is not manipulated in any way
      - IV has not been made by any one it is just a difference that occurs naturally
      - strengths
        
        allows comparison between types of people e.g. genders
      - weaknesses
        
        same as natural
- - - - observers become actively involved in situation they are studying
      - strength
        
        provide special insight into behaviour from the "inside" that may not be otherwise gained
      - weakness
        
        more likely to be overt and therefore issues of participant awareness
    - - researchers do not become involved in situation they are studying
      - strength
        
        observers are likely to be more objective because they are not part of the group being observed
      - weakness
        
        more likely to be covert which means ethical issues
    - - participants are aware they are being observed
      - weakness
        
        participants are aware of being studied which may affect naturalness of behaviour
      - strength
        
        participants more able to give consent
    - - participants are not aware they are being observed
      - strength
        
        participants are unaware of being observed and therefore their behaviour is more natural
      - weakness
        
        ethical issues because behaviours being observed must not be private ones
        
        participants cannot give consent (retrospective consent)
    - - behaviour is studied in a natural situation
      - researcher does not interfer in anyway with what is happening
      - strength
        
        gives a realistic picture of spontaneous behaviour = ecological validity
      - weakness
        
        less control which means more likely to have confounding variables
    - - some variables in the environment are regulated by the researcher reducing the "naturalness" of the environment
      - strength
        
        observer can focus on particular aspects of behaviour
      - weakness
        
        control means environment is less natural and therefore participant's behaviour is also less natural