Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Research Methods - IB - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Like a field experiment, takes place in a natural setting and participants might not know they are in an experiment
        
        However, natural experiments are special because the IV occurs naturally and is not manipulated by the researcher
        
        Normally used when another method would be unethical or impossible
        
        Examples could include new laws or introduction of new technology (e.g: Charlton et al looked at if children's behaviour changed after the introduction of TV to St Helena)
      - Strengths: Natural setting with no manipulation, so the most ecologically valid type of experiment (behaviour should be true to life), lets research be conducted on otherwise unethical situations
      - Weaknesses: Almost impossible to replicate and test reliability due to nature, hard to control extraneous variables and show a cause and effect relationship
    - - Takes place in an artificial setting made by researchers under highly controlled conditions. The IV is directly manipulated by the researchers in this environment.
        
        All participants will know they are taking part in an experiment
      - Strengths: Easier to control extraneous variables and replicate to test reliability, demonstrate clear cause and effect
      - Weaknesses: Low ecological validity (fake setting/tasks), may lead to sampling bias, participants might show demand characteristics
    - - Setting is natural, but researchers still manipulate the IV to see if it affects the DV and will try to control extraneous variables
        
        Participants may not know they are in an experiment and may just enter the place where it is being conducted (opportunity sample)
      - Strengths: Natural setting makes it ecologically valid (behaviour should be true to life), still possible to show a cause and effect relationship (but harder), reduces participant bias/demand characteristics
      - Weaknesses: Harder to control extraneous variables, can lead to ethical concerns if participants don't know they're in a study (consent, right to withdraw)
  - - - Questionnaires tend to include more closed-ended questions
  - - - Structured: Asks a set list of question with no deviation. Often used when there are lots of participants being interviewed.
      - Semi-structured: Contains pre-set questions, but there are open-ended questions that allow for more questions to be asked and a free flowing conversation
      - Unstructured: One or two pre-set questions, the rest are improvised and based on responses. More conversational in nature and best for gathering in-depth data.
      - There are also focus groups, where a group of people are invited to discuss the topic with each other, while a moderator keeps the conversation relevant, ensures everyone contributes equally and records data.
        
        Strengths: Group conversations are more natural and can create greater validity, inexpensive method of getting data from lots of participants
        
        Weaknesses: Conformity and social desirability bias may occur
    - - Strengths: In-depth data can be gathered, structured interviews are easy to repeat and test reliability, semi-structured ones give participants freedom to answer in their own way (interview can deviate from schedule), unstructured ones are more valid
      - Weaknesses: Social desirability bias can occur (participants answer to look good), semi-structured interviews can be time-consuming, unstructured ones are impossible to repeat and therefore unreliable and require a lot of training to carry out.
  - - - Positive correlation: As one variable increases, so does the other.
      - Negative: As one variable increases, the other decreases
    - - Strengths: Quicker and cheaper to carry out than other research methods, help show reliability and validity of measuring tools in psychology, useful when the variables cannot be or are impossible/unethical to manipulate by researchers
      - Weaknesses: Very reductionist (full conclusions cannot be drawn from them), cannot draw a reliable cause and effect relationship (hard to see which variable causes the other, if that is even the case)
  - - - Often used for study unique or rare individuals (e.g: unique brain damage/upbringing)
    - - Strengths: Generates detailed, rich, valid information, can carry out otherwise impossible or unethical research, high ecological validity
      - Weaknesses: Lacks generalisability (often studying only one individual or group), difficult to replicate and test reliability, researcher bias may occur, not the most practical method of gathering data (takes too long)
  - - - Overt or covert - the participants either know and can see they're being observed or don't.
        
        Overt observations are more ethical to conduct (participants give consent), but can result in demand characteristics that affect validity.
      - Controlled or naturalistic - elements of the observational environment are controlled (often done in a lab) or the observation might take place in the real world
        
        Controlled observations reduce extraneous variables, but can lead to unnatural behaviour that participants wouldn't have in the real world (less ecologically valid)
      - Participant or non-participant: Researchers can join the group they are observing (they usually won't know) and take part in their activities or choose not to and stay separate.
        
        Taking part could allow the researcher to build trust with participants, which could make them behave more naturally and disclose more information. It is also usually more ecologically valid. However, joining in could bias the research, because the researcher can only see things from the participants' point of view (less rapport.)