Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Doing Social Psych - Coggle Diagram
Doing Social Psych
Operationalising
Operationalise: define & measure abstract concepts
Operational definition: specific procedures for manipulating or measuring a conceptual value - turn conceptual variable -> operational variable
-
Measures
Self report: participants disclose feelings, thoughts, desires, actions through questions (individual or set)
- Pros: access to beliefs & perceptions
- Cons: inaccurate (bogus pipeline technique - infallible lie detector), question wording, order, context, memory error
Observation: observe participants' actions (complex ones require interrater reliability)
- Pros: no memory or distortion errors
- Cons: bias to act well
Technology: physiological, reaction times, eye-tracking, brain-imaging
IV vs DV
- IV = manipulated
- DV = measured, outcome
Scientific Method
-
Method: hunches from observation
-> theory
-> hypothesis / prediction / question
-> research
-> support / redevelop / abandon theory
-
Hypothesis & Theory
Hypothesis: explicit, testable conditions under which an event will occur (prediction)
Theory: organised set of principles / concepts to explain observed phenomena
- Explanation used to predict
- Must be tested
-
Ethical Issues
Informed consent: deliberate, voluntary decision to participate in research, based on researcher's description
- may not be deliberate & voluntary online
Strategies: replicability, better stats, public scrutiny, publish all results, predict first
Debriefing: researcher explains purpose, resolves -ve feelings, emphasises contribution
Research Methods
Non-Experimental
Descriptive: describe people's thoughts, feelings & behaviours (how frequently or typically)
- Pros: info about thoughts, feelings & behaviours
- Cons: no correlation or causation
Correlational: measure associations / relationships between variables
- Correlation coefficient: strength & direction of association between 2 variables
- Pros: variables that are unethical/difficult to induce/manipulate
- Cons: no causation (BUT can use if opposite direction impossible, no confounders)
Methods
Archival: examine existing records - medical, newspaper, diaries, sports stats, crime stats, web page visits
- Cultural, historical trends, e.g. crime rates, stock market crash
- Pros: no influence from researcher, large scale, over time
- Cons: incomplete / non systematic / not detailed data
Case studies: analysis of single case/person
- e.g. natural disaster, rare mental illness
- Pros: unusual/rare phenomena
- Cons: generalisability, evaluation apprehension
Discourse analysis: analysing words - see which words describe 'things'
Surveys: asking large, representative sample questions about attitudes, beliefs & behaviours - in person, phone, mail, internet
- e.g. politics, sexual orientation, feelings about future
- Pros: variables that are unethical/impossible, large, anon
- Cons: question context matters, need representative sample
- Random sampling: everyone in population has equal chance of being selected
Field studies: observe people in natural setting - outside lab, not an experiment
- e.g. gambling at pokies
- Pros: spontaneous, real-world
- Cons; researcher presence, lack objectivity
Observational: observing participants
- e.g. bullying in playground, with hidden camera & microphones
- Pros: no memory, distortion errors
- Cons: act differently if being watched
Qualitative: identify meaning, through diary, open-ended questionnaires, case studies, focus groups, drawings, other media
- Pros: can assess meaning
- Cons: time consuming, expert knowledge required to code
Experimental
Random sampling vs assignment
- Sampling: selecting to be in study -> representative -> generalise - not necessary for causation
- Assignment: assigning to conditions -> equalise -> IV => DV
Methods
Lab experiment: controlled environment
- Pros: control for confounding variables
- Cons: may not generalise to real world
- LOW on mundane realism / external validity
- HIGH on experimental realism / internal validity
Field experiment: real-world setting
- Pros: act naturally
- Cons: less control, random assignment difficult, accurate measures difficult
- HIGH on mundane realism / external validity
Validity
- Internal: reasonably certain that IV caused DV
(through control, random assignment, control groups, blinding experiments - reduce experimenter expectancy)
- External: reasonably certain same results in other situations with other people - generalisability
(larger samples, how 'realistic' study is)
- Low on external validity - mundane realism (resembles real world)
- High on internal validity - experimental realism (involving, behave naturally)
Deception: providing false info to participants
- Use confederates
- Strengthens experimental realism
- Create situations that would be hard naturally
Experiment: determine causation
- Control: by experimenter over events
- Random assignment: each participant has equal chance of being in each condition
- Pros: cause & effect
- Cons: must control for confounding variables (hard)