scattergram
postive, negtive and no correlation
1. can see the strength of a relationship between variables.
2. may suggest further research.
3. provide quantitative which is easy to anylse
1. doesn't show a cause and effect relaytionship.
2. no details to the data.
1. independent variable.
2. dependent variable.
3. extraneous variables.
4. confounding variables.
a factor which may infulence your results, so you control it to minimise it's effect. then it doesn't impact the DV
a variable which you cannot control (usually individual differences). becuase it is not controlled it will interfere with your results.
turing ideas into measures experiments
for example how do you measure problem solving ability. you can time taken to complete a puzzle.
states the direction of the difference or relationship, makes a prediction as to which will be bigger/more effective
does not state the direction, only that there will be a difference/affect.
this can also be know as a 2-tailed hypothesis
characteristics that make us unique
when one condition/task affects the perfomance on the next condition/task.
remember this with 'ABBA'. a techniqure to balance/reduce order effects in a repeated mesures design. E.g. half the p's do condition A with B then the other half do condition B then A.
one gropu does one condition and another group does a diffferent condition
where all the groups do all the conditions
recruit another set of participants who match the original group. so everyone in hte original group has a 'twin' in the other group
1. no chance of order efffects.
2. less chance of p's working out the aim and chanign their behaviour (demand characteristics).
1. individual differences - difficult to compare different people.
2. researcher may need more p's as the same ones can't be used again.
1. no indvidual differences.
2. fewer p's may be needed.
1. risk of order effects.
2. more chance of order effects.
1. no order effects.
2. individual differences are reduced.
3. less chance of demand characteristics.
1. still have indivdual differences.
2. researcher may need more p's.
lab, field and quasi
when the independent variable has been manipulated and the experiment is conducted in a controled/artifical enviroment.
1. high control and high replicability.
2. can establish cause and effect as the IV is manipulated.
3. most scientific type of experiment and often uses scientific equipment.
1. high chance of demand characteristics.
2. often low in ecolgical balidity as expiments and very controlled.
when the independent variable has manipulated but the experiment has been conducted where you would expct see that behaviour occur/in a natural environment.
1. cause and effect can be identified as the IV is manipualted can be higher in ecological validity than lab experiments as field experiments conducted in real life condents
1. harder to control variables.
2. more change of confounding variables so more difficult to establish cause and effect than a lab experiment.
3. difficult to replicate.
4. less scientific than lab experiments as there's less control.
when the independent variable is naturally occurring and has not been manipulated by the researcher.
1. allows us to look at variables it would be impossible or unethical to investigate otherwise.
2. can be carried out in a lab or natural environment so could have the same strengths of lab and field experiments.
3. scientific.
4. reliable.
1. difficult to establish cause and effect becuase the researcher has not manipulated (controlled) the IV.
2. sampling bias could occur as the research does not have control over who can participate in which condition.
1. experiments have an independent and dependent bariable so cause and effect can be identified.
2. replicable.
3. scientific.
4. reliable.
1. high chance of demand characteristics affecting the validity.
2. low in ecological validity as often very controlled.
1. observational studies therefore tend to be high in ecological validity if the observer remains undetected.
2. avoids demand characteristics.
1. a number of ethical issues can arise including problems with a lack of consent and invasion of privacy.
2. difficult to replicate.
3. there is little or no control of extraneous varibles in observational studies.
4. there is also the problem of observer bias with observational studies. they may misinterpret what they see.
you observe at certain times within a time frame e.g. every minute for 10 seconds.
observe a specific event every time it occurs within a whole time period.
1. observer is less likely to miss behaviours becuase they're recording every time it happens.
1. may miss some behaviours if several happen at once and it's difficult to keep track.
1. less likly to miss behviours. obersver doesn't have to stay focussed for the whole observation.
1. may miss some behaviours if they occur when the observer isn't recording behaviour.
the researcher has a behaviour chechlist to tally
1. there's clear direction. the observer may be less likely to miss behaviours becuase they have them listed in front of them.
behvaiours may occur that aren't on the checklist and then don't get recorded.
the researcher donesn't have a pre-determined behaciour checklist. records any behaviour they see.
1. allows the observer to record any behaviours they see. not restricted to a checklist.
1. may lost sight of the actual observation and have too many behaviours recorded.
an observation carried out in a natural environment/where you'd expect to see that behaviour occur.
1. more real to life. more natural behaviour from the participants.
1. less control by the researcher. sometimes difficult to control the participants (especially if covert).
this is usually conducted in a controlled setting. researcher controls who they'll observe and often the participants know they're being observed.
1. researcher has more control over the observation. E.g. may be able to control how many participants.
1. less real to life. participants may change their natural behaviour if the observation is controlled.
where the observers are part of, or are pretending to be part of, the participants that are being observed.
1. observers can gain first hand data. lesss likely to miss behaviours/things that are said.
1. may show observer bias - observer may get 'caught up' in the observation and interpret the behaviour how they want.
the researcher is not part of the behaviour being observed.
1. less chance of observer bias if not involved in the behaviour being observed.
1. less chance of observer bias if not involved in the behaviour being observed.
may miss certain behaviours if it's difficult to observe every behaviour occurring.
particpants know they're being observed.
1. ethical. paticpants have given their consent.
1. participants may change their behaviour if they know they're being observed.
the participants don't know they're being observed.
1. jparticpatns won't change their behaviour as they don't know they're being observed.
1. less ethical. must only be done in a public place also.
when the observer interprets the data how they want to. this is bad because the observer is less likely measurin what they intend to.
when there are categories of behaviour/checklist to observe during an observation.
1. gives the rsearcher direction. more likely to record every behaviour they need to.
1. may restrict the researcher and only focus on the listed behaviours.
when behavioural categories are coded and can be rated for severity. E.g. observing kicking and punching in a playground.
kicking (1 = light kick, 5 = hard kick)
punching (1 = light punch, 5 = hard punch)
1. allows the behaviour checklist to contain more detail.
1. observers may interpret the behaviour how they want and not be consistent with another observer.
2 or more observers observe the same behaviour, at the same time, using the same behaviour checklist. compare their data at the end.
1. can see if they're recorded data in a similar way.
1. time consuming. another observer is needed.
when the presence of an observer in a overt observation changes the behaviour of the participants. this is bad because the observer is not measuring what they intedn to as participants change their behaviour.
questionnaries and interviews.
1. structured.
2. semi-structured.
3. unstructured.
1. clear direction.
2. all respondents have an equal chance - reliable and consistent for comparison.
1. may be so foucssed on the planned quesitons and miss other relevant info.
1. flexibility to ask other questions in response to the participnat's answers.
2. may feel more natural - participant may feel more comforatable.
1. no direction - less reliable and harder to analyse as all questions are different for each participant.
when the researcher has pre-planned/pre-determined questions.
an interview with no pre-determined questions.
an interview with pre-determined questions and new questions are created in response to participant's answers
1. some reliablity/structure but also allows flexiblity within the interview.
2. slightly replicable.
1. may go off topic and not ask all relevant questions.
2. more difficult to analyse.
questions with no rstricted response for example 'descirbe the last dream you remembered.'
1. reasoning behind answers (rich qualitative data).
1. difficult to analyse as it's qualitative data.
2. may be researcher bias when analysing the data.
questions with a restricted response (must have options to choose from). for example do you dream yes/no.
1. gives us quantiative data which is easy to analyse.
1. no reasoning behind answers.
1. rating scales.
2. semantic differential rating scales.
3. likert scales.
where you can rate your response. for example 1-10 where 1 = not stressed and 10 = stressed.
1. easy to analyse. quantitative data.
1. no reasons behind answer.
2. response bias.
a rating scale that uses opposite adjectivs. for example helpful and unhelpful.
1. easy to analyse. quantiative data.
1. no reasons behind answers.
2. response bias.
a question that uses agree/disagree. neutral point is 'neither agree or disagree'.
1. easy to analyse. quantitative data.
2. can show the extent to which participants agree or disagree with something.
1. no reasons behind answers.
2. response bias.
when participants opt for the middle number on a scale to not show extreme values. this is a bad thing beacuse the validity will decrease.
when particpants chage their behaviour to fit in with soical norms in order to be seen as favourable by others. this is bad becuase the validity decreases.
when participants change their behaviour to suit the needs of the study. this is bad because the validity decreases.