Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Research Methods - Coggle Diagram

- - - - the dependent variable
  - - - in terms of how they can be measured
  - - - intends to investigate
- - - - investigates an association / relationship between
        
        two co-variables
  - - - number produced between -1 and +1 after statistical analysis of a correlation
        
        number represents the direction and strength of a relationship between co-variables
  - - - Non Directional
      - Directional
  - - - research methods
      - statistical tests to analyse results
    - - can't establish cause and effect
      - co-variables
      - no manipulation of variables
    - - deliberately manipulates IV
      - independent and dependent variables
  - - - less successful for non linear relationships
        
        limits the type of data that can be analysed and conclusion drawn
    - - both co-variables may affect the result
        
        leads to
        
        invalid conclusions
        
        E.G
        
        days of school missed may be due to choice not illness
  - - - lets the researcher have access to large amounts of data
        
        which otherwise be impossible to gather if they tried to form this data from scratch
        
        Large quantitative data
        =
        high in reliability
    - - Which helps with identifying people at risk and implore interventions (Students absent from school correlation to bad gcses)
        
        Applicable to real world
- - - - UNLESS
        
        has been empirically tested and verified through direct observation
  - - - THEN
        
        see the extent to which the findings can be generalised
  - - - conditions are controlled
      - not affected by the expectations of the researcher
  - - - to be scientific a theory needs to explain and predict the occurrence of events
        
        SO
        
        hypotheses can be rigorously tested
  - - - SO
        
        a cause (IV) and effect (DV) can be established
  - - - if it finds support it is strengthened
      - if it fails to find support theory needs to be modified
- - - - using chance when
        
        designing materials
        
        deciding the order of conditions
  - - - using exactly the same formalised procedures and instructions for all ppts
  - - - half ppts experience the conditions in one order and the other half in the opposite order
      - ABBA
        
        ppt 1: condition 1 - condition 2
        
        ppt 2 : condition 2 - condition 1
  - - - use a random method to decide which ppt goes into which group
- - - - for each condition in the study
    - - Demand Characteristics aren’t likely to be confounding variables
        
        Participants only take part in 1 condition of IV
        
        Less likely to guess aim of study
        
        Higher Internal Validity
      - Experiencing one condition eliminates order effects
        
        Participants will not become tired/bored/overly practised at the task
        
        Increases validity of findings
    - - Participant variables may affect validity
        
        If many participants with a similar characteristics are allocated a specific condition
        
        Then results aren’t a true measure of IV’s impact on DV
      - More participants needed for IGD
        
        Logistical issues arise if there aren’t enough people available to take part in research
        
        Each condition of IV may have lower number than if RMD was used
        
        Reduces reliability due to small sample size
  - - - Order effects lower validity
        
        Participants become tired/bored/overly practised at task
        
        Researchers cannot be 100% sure IV has affected DV or if other variables affected DV
      - Demand Characteristics become confounding variables
        
        Participants take part in both conditions
        
        may guess aim of study and act accordingly
        
        Decreases internal validity
    - - two sets of results for each ppt are then compared
    - - Participant variables aren’t issue
        
        their performance in one condition is compared to their performance in another
        
        own control group
        
        Increases internal validity
      - Fewer participants needed
        
        generates 2 scores from one sample
        
        Less problematic for researchers to find sufficient amount of people
  - - - key variables
        
        AGE & IQ
        
        one member from each pair is placed into one of the conditions and the other is placed into the other
    - - factors out confounding variables
        
        Researchers ensure all participants have a match
        
        Meaning participants performance is compared to one which is very similar to theirs
        
        Increases reliability
      - Demand characteristics are reduced
        
        Participants only perform in one condition of IV
        
        Increases validity
        
        Less likely to guess aim
    - - If one participant drops out they must find someone similar to replace them
        
        Problematic + Slow research cycle
        
        Funding for research may be removed
      - time consuming
        
        Impossible to match participants across all criteria
        
        Unmatched characteristics may be influential on results
        
        may have differing levels of motivation/skill/ability
        
        Lack of consistency
        
        Lowers reliability
- - - - lack internal validity as other factors may explain results
        
        someone old may regularly work with numbers
        
        they have advantage
      - Participants can’t be randomly allocated condition
        
        Leads to participant variables
        
        Difficult to determine causality
        
        Less reliable
    - - Lack of manipulation of IV
        
        higher external validity
      - follows true experimental design meaning it is replicable
        
        with participants of similar/same demographic
    - - DV may be tested in a lab
      - cannot randomly allocated ppts into conditions
      - investigate relationships between IV and DV when the IV is a characteristic of a person
  - - - Demand characteristics are less felt
        
        More relaxed & natural environment of field
        
        increased validity to findings
      - Artificiality is reduced in real setting
        
        More comfortable in a setting
        
        =
        
        behaviour reflects behaviour which would be done out of research parameters
        
        High external validit
    - - Extraneous variables likely to impacting study findings
        
        Cannot control these variables from limit of control possible in field
        
        Reliability of findings lowers
        
        Difficult to replicate
        
        Less consistency
        
        Less reliability
    - - IV manipulated by researcher to see effects on DV
      - ppt are not aware that they are being studied
  - - - Investigate topics which would be unethical to study in traditional lab setting
        
        High ethical validity
      - High ecological Validity
        
        Paticipants report on events they have personal first hand knowledge of
        
        Researchers don’t attempt to control procedure
        
        increases mundane realism
    - - Conformation bias
        
        Researchers look for pre-existing ideas that ppts bring to the research process
      - Sample bias
        
        Sample is determined by experience
        
        SO
        
        limited group can be used in research
    - - DV may be tested in a lab
      - IV varies NATURALLY
  - - - involved artificial materials carried out in an environment
        
        e.g
        
        lab
    - - Use of standardised procedure means that research is replicable
        
        Increased reliability
      - Cause-effect relationship is easier to place between IV and DV
        
        Due to controls and objective nature of the research
        
        High internal validity
    - - Artificial tasks mean this method lacks ecological validity
        
        Particpants perform tasks in unfamiliar sterile setting
        
        not reflecting how they may behave in real conditions
        
        findings hard to generalise to other settings beyond lab
      - Demand characteristics limit generalisability of findings
        
        Participants know they’re in study & may alter behaviour
        
        Lowering external validity
- - - - Even when a scientific principle has been successfully and repeatedly tested
        
        IT IS NOT
        
        necessarily true it just hasn't been proven false yet
      - Theories that survive the most attempts to falsify them becomes the strongest
        
        NOT because they're inheriently true
        
        BUT
        
        because despite best efforts, they have not been proved false
    - - UNLESS
        
        it admits the possibility of being proved false
- - - - Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        Cons
      - Researcher (+ confederates if present) join the group they’re observing
        
        becomes part of the group
      - Festinger and confederates infiltrate a doomsday cult and keep record of behaviour + conversations
      - ppts may not be aware there is an outsider (researcher)
        
        most are covert
    - - Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        Cons
      - Researcher stays seperate from the group they’re observing
      - Participant may or may not be aware they’re being observed
      - Researcher takes no part in procedure in any way
  - - - Evaluation
      - Chose when observing: SMALL SAMPLE + INTIMATE ENVIRO
        
        Interpersonal interactions are the focus of observation
        
        Lets researcher see all things occurring in session
      - Flexible + Open-ended
        
        Conducted in relaxed manner
        
        Don’t use predetermined behavioural categories
        
        INSTEAD
        
        they go with the flow of session
      - Qualative data collected
        
        Verbal & Non verbal communications
      - Reseacher is interested in full range of behaviours displayed
        
        Lets them have more insight on behaviours
        
        by not restricting the observed behaviours to categories
    - - Chosen when observing: LARGE SAMPLE + BUSY ENVIROMENT
        
        Many behaviours generally occur in this setting
      - Researcher observes specific, well defined behaviours
        
        oppose to
        
        making sense of all the ongoing info
        
        E.G
        
        Helping // Not helping behaviours
      - Quantative data
      - Only focus on a set amount of behaviours
        
        Lets them quantify observed behaviour
        
        They observe predetermined behaviours
        
        So they don’t record unnecessary behaviours
      - Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        Cons
  - - - ppts are aware they’re being informed and are informed in advance
        
        may be able to see the researcher observing
      - Evaluation
      - More inclined to happen in a controlled lab
        
        as researcher wants to see the effects of IV on DV
      - usually beneficial for the controlled enviroment to occur
        
        since
        
        covert would be more preferable if control wasn’t needed
    - - Evaluation
      - ppts aren't aware they’re being observed and not informed in advance
        
        can’t see researcher observing them
      - To abide by ethics these can only occur in public contexts
        
        where
        
        it would be occurring anyways regardless of the observation
      - More likley to be naturalistic
        
        they want to preserve the natural and unforced quality of the behaviour
  - - - Obseervation in a natural setting AWAY FROM LAB
        
        Absence or unmanipulated of IV
      - used when it would be inappropriate//impossible to actually run the experiment investigating the topic
        
        E.G
        
        Behaviour of school shooting victims
        
        Implementing an IV is unethical
      - ppts may be unaware that they’re being observed as all they’re doing is their regular routine
      - Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        Cons
    - - Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        Cons
      - done within a space which has a degree of control
        
        allowing for replicability of the procedure & possibly IV
      - Procedure is formulated so that there are predetermined
        
        behavioural categories which are going to be measured
      - Participants know they’re in a controlled study as they must be recruited
        
        given tasks which are abnormal to their day to day lives
- - - - Through this they can get a consensus of how people feel about something
  - - - IQ
  - - - qualitative data
      - Allows freedom of speech in responses
      - Evaluation
    - - quantitative data
      - Limited options for participants responses
      - Evaluation
- - - - closed
        
        questions
        
        or both
      - open
    - - Recorded
      - written down by researcher
    - - BUT
        
        as follow ups to question
  - - - In-person
      - Online
- - - - unless
        
        nominal data
  - - - how far values vary and differ from one another
    - - measure of how much scores vary around the mean score
      - tells us how much they deviate from the mean
      - Evaluation
    - - difference between the highest and lowest number
      - Evaluation
- - - - any effect of the investigator's behaviour on the DV
        
        may include anything from
        
        the design of the study
        
        the interaction with ppts during the research process
    - - any cue from the researcher or research situation that
        
        can be interpreted by participants as revealing the purpose of the investigation
        
        leading them to changing their behaviour to
        
        please/sabotage experimenter or results
    - - individual differences between ppts
        
        that may affect the DV
    - - any feature of the experimental situation
        
        that may affect the DV
      - COULD impact study
    - - when the positioning or order of conditions influence the outcome
        
        you learn therefore repeat it faster/bored
- - - - rights of the ppts
      - aims of the researcher to gain valuable findings
  - - - consent
      - debrief
      - deception
      - right to Withdraw
      - confidentiality
      - protection from harm
  - - - costs and benefits involved in
        carrying out individual pieces of research
- - - - Observation
        
        Hypothesis formed
        
        Study to test hypothesis
        
        Conclusions drawn
        
        Theory constructed
    - - Observations
        
        Theories formed
        
        Hypothesis formed
        
        Study to test hypothesis
        
        Conclusions drawn
  - - - VIA
        
        direct observation and experience
        
        OPPOSED TO
        
        unfounded beliefs
  - - - WHICH
        
        have the ability to explain particular events/behaviours
        
        WHICH
        
        can be scientifically tested
- - - - Pros
      - COns
    - - e.g. every 30 seconds
        
        so in a 5-minute observation they would make 10 recordings
        
        At the specified time intervals
        
        tick/mark one or more categories from the behavioural checklist
        
        according to the behaviour exhibited by the observed child
      - Behaviours observed in between the time sampling frame
        
        ignored and should not be recorded
  - - - researcher bias can still occur in observation
        
        to counteract that we can:
        
        test reliability of observation by comparing them with another researchers recording of behaviours
        
        then compare
        
        Level of consistency between two records compared
    - - NO AMBIGUITY
        
        Researchers would have agreed on what the specific behaviours should be recorded
        
        SO all observers agree before observation
        
        Therefore these behaviours are
        
        OPERATIONALISED
    - - Pros
      - Cons
  - - - then the researcher records every time this event occurs
    - - Pros
      - Cons
- - - - they should receive training on the interpretation of each category
      - Observe the same behaviour at same time
        BUT
        carry out separate tallies as part of pilot study
        
        Compare observations and discuss differences
        
        use this to make any changes to the behavioural categories
        
        make changes to the wording
        
        might want to add/remove a category
        
        carry out full observation
        observe the same behaviour but keep separate tallies
        
        Establish what the inter-observer reliability is
        
        BY
        
        comparing the two sets of observations
        
        1 more item...
  - - - then complete tally from recording
- - - - without
        
        interference from the experimenter
- - - - to avoid any potential experimenter bias
  - - - Given to all participants
        
        tailored to condition of each IV
    - - of participants per condition
        
        Not always possible when participant numbers are odd
    - - Each condition runs for same amount of time
        
        UNLESS
        
        a condition includes a time delay
    - - Before the procedure standarised consent is achieved
        
        standarised debriefing after procedure has occured
    - - Identical materials used
        
        UNLESS
        
        change is made for IV to be implemented
- - - - group of people who
        
        are the focus of the researchers interest
        
        from which a smaller sample is drawn
    - - group of people who take part in a research investigation
        
        relatively representative of the
        target population
    - - Stratified
        
        reflects the populations of people in certain
        
        sub-groups/strata
        
        within the target population
        
        Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        designed to be representative
        
        more likely to generalise the findings
        
        avoids researcher bias
        
        randomly allocated once the % is calculated
        
        no involvement in who gets selected
        
        Cons
        
        time consuming to conduct
        
        people selected may not even agree to be a part of the study
        
        they need to substitute these people who fit the strata
        
        researchers cannot confidently classify every member of the population into a subgroup
        
        not always possible to get access to all the information on a target population
        
        so they may not be truley representative of the operationalised strata
      - Systematic
        
        uses a predetermined system to select ppts
        
        every nth member of the target population is selected
        
        Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        unbiased
        
        researcher has no control over where participants are placed on the population list
        
        sample is more representative
        
        1 more item...
        
        quick, easy and cost-effective
        
        makes it popular amongst researchers
        
        agreed by funding bodies
        
        Cons
        
        has to know the size of the population to generate the optimum sample size
        
        or else
        
        lack generalisability
        
        1 more item...
        
        selection process can interact with a hidden periodic trait
        
        E.G
        
        Every 10th person in a list is a male
        
        1 more item...
      - Opportunity
        
        consists of people who are willing and readily available
        
        will ask whoever is around
        
        Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        convenient and quick
        
        suits whoever is available
        
        less time consuming
        
        All participants are willing
        
        Research process runs smoothly
        
        Unwilling // Resistant participants may damage validity of findings
        
        Cons
        
        unrepresentative of target pop.
        
        depends on time of day/whoever is available
        
        findings difficult to generalise
        
        researcher bias
        
        researcher may look for certain types of people they want in their study
        
        lack internal validity
      - Random
        
        all members of target population have an equal chance of being selected
        
        names from a hat
        
        random computer name generator
        
        Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        unbiased and free from researcher bias
        
        have no influence over who/who is selected
        
        Cons
        
        time consuming and difficult to conduct
        
        may still end up with unrepresentative sample
        
        pts may refuse to take part which means
        
        1 more item...
        
        non-representative sample
        
        ample could be unbalanced
        
        E.G
        
        1 more item...
      - Volunteer
        
        ppts selecting themselves to be a part of the sample
        
        responding to adverts/raising hands in class
        
        Evaluation
        
        Pros
        
        more representative because there is an access to a wide variety of ppts
        
        less time consuming and requires minimal effort
        
        Cons
        
        volunteer bias - ppts may be a cetain profile
        
        E.G
        
        being good with numbers as they're an accoutant
        
        1 more item...