Investigation Design Aims A reasonably precise statement of why a study is taking place. It should include what’s being studied and what the study is trying to achieve. Hypotheses A hypothesis is much more precise than an aim and predicts what’s expected to happen. They are testable statements. Experimental hypothesis. Used for experiments only. This predicts significant differences in the DV as a result of manipulation of the IV. Any difference or effect found is not due to chance. Alternative hypothesis is used for all other research methods. a) Directional/one-tailed hypothesis. This states the direction of the results. It is called directional because it states one direction in which the results can go. b) Non-directional/two-tailed. This states there will be a difference, but doesn’t state the direction of the results. Null hypothesis. It predicts that the IV will not affect the DV, the results will simply be due to chance EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Repeated measures design. The same participants are tested in the 2 (or more) conditions. Advantages No individual differences between the 2 groups. Fewer participants are needed (half as many) Weaknesses Order effects. Can be controlled by counterbalancing “ABBA” Lost participants (may drop out) Demand characteristics – more likely to guess the purpose of the study Takes more time. May need a gap between conditions Independent groups design. Different participants are used in each of the conditions. Participants are often randomly allocated to each condition. Advantages No order effects Less chance of demand characteristics Weaknesses Need more participants Any differences between the groups may be due to individual differences not the manipulation of the IV. Random allocation would reduce this problem. Time saved Matched pairs design. Different but similar participant are used in each of the conditions. Participants are matched across groups on any characteristics judged to be important for that particular study e.g. age, gender, ethnicity. Advantages See independent group design Less differences between the groups Weaknesses See independent group design Matching is difficult. It is impossible to match all variables between participants. The variable missed might be vital. ( Identical twins would be best) Time consuming. Takes a long time to accurately match participants on all variables. Design of naturalistic observations Data can be collected by using visual recordings, audio recordings (usually analysed later) or on the spot note taking using previously agreed rating scales or coding categories. One difficulty with naturalistic observations involves the development and use of appropriate behavioural categories. Behavioural categories. – Observers have to agree on a grid or coding sheet on which to record the behaviour they wish to study. It is often easier to code or rate the behaviour e.g. T = talking. M-P = using mobile phone. Or a rating scale 1-5 e.g. on a scale of “safe driving”. One of the main problems is to achieve standardisation between different observers and a lot of training is required. Checks that all observers are coding behaviour in the same way ensure inter-observer reliability. One way to assess this is to conduct a correlation of all the observers scores. High correlation indicates reliability ( may not be correct but is consist as a group). Design of questionnaire There are a number of essential factors in questionnaire design. Aims – Be very clear about the aim of the research, only ask questions that address these aims Length – The longer the questionnaire the less likely it will be completed. Make it short and to the point. Advice. Examples of questionnaires that have proved successful in the past should be used as a basis for the questionnaire design Statistical analysis – this should be considered at the design stage Presentation – looks matter Question order – useful to start with some simple factual biographical questions before moving on to more probing questions. Usually best to put essential questions in first half as many are sent back unfinished. Keep it interesting Question formulation – questions should be simple, to the point and easily understood. Avoid ambiguity, complicated terms, double barrelled questions etc. Incentives – offering an incentive to complete a questionnaire can help with return rates. It should also be easy to return e.g. a pre paid envelope. Pilot study – A test of the questionnaire should be done on people who can provide detailed and honest feedback. Measurement scales. When using scales e.g. 1 strongly agree 2 Agree 3 undecided 4 disagree 5 strongly disagree – many will choose the “undecided” but unclear whether this is because they have no opinion or cannot decide between their attitudes. Likert scale possibly best known attitude scale. Design of interviews It is important to consider who will be the interviewer. Gender and age of the interviewer affect the answers of respondents especially if the topic is of a sensitive sexual nature. Ethnicity – some interviewers have more difficulty interviewing people drawn from a different culture and have less rapport with the participant Personal characteristics – some people are easier to get on with, interviewers may adopt different roles. Use of language, accent and appearance can also affect how someone comes across to the interviewee. Interviewers need training. Need to be able to listen. Non-verbal communication is also important. Need to be able to relax interviewee. The more difficult and probing questions are usually best left to the end Operationalisation of variables This means being able to define variables simply and easily in order to manipulate them (IV) and measure them (DV). Sometimes this can be difficult to do and if the issue is complex then when you operationalise you may only measure one aspect of the variable. If the IV and DV are not operationalised accurately and objectively the results may not be reliable or valid. Pilot studies. These are small scale ‘practice’ investigations where all aspects of the research can be checked and any changes can then be made. Control of extraneous variables Extraneous variables must be carefully and systematically controlled. Researchers should consider: Participant variables – age, intelligence, personality etc. should be controlled across the different groups taking part. Situational variables - the experimental setting and surrounding environment must be controlled. Experimenter variables – the personality, appearance and conduct of the experimenter should be controlled If the extraneous variables are not controlled they can become confounding variables which minimise the value of any results. Reliability and validity Reliability – If results are reliable they are said to be consistent i.e. you would get similar results if you repeated the study. Results can be reliable but not accurate (faulty equipment) or valid Validity – Measure what they’re supposed to be measuring and are accurate. Internal reliability – is a test consistent within itself. External reliability – is test reliable over time. Check with test retest method. Internal validity – are results valid and directly attributed to the manipulation of the IV (not affected by confounding variables). To be internally valid there should be : no investigator effects, no demand characteristics, standardised instructions should be used as well as random sampling. External (ecological) validity. Can the results be generalised to the wider population or to different settings or different historical times. ETHICS – Should follow The British Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics Informed consent. Where possible participants should be informed of the objectives and if participant parental consent should also be given Avoidance of deception – deception should be avoided where possible this includes withholding information or misleading participants especially if participants likely to object or show unease in a debrief. To deal with this issue can use a) presumptive consent, b) prior general consent or c) retrospective consent. If deception is used, participants should be told immediately afterwards and given chance to withdraw their data. The investigator should ensure that alternative procedures that do not involve deception are unavailable. Adequate briefing/debriefing – all relevant details of the study should be explained to participants before and after the study. Debrief is especially important if deception has been used. Participants should ;leave the study feeling the same or better about themselves as when they started. Protection of participants – must protect participants from physical and mental harm. Normally the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life Right to withdraw – participants should always be aware they can leave the study at any time regardless of any payment and withdraw their data at any point. Particular issue with observations. Confidentiality – information should be kept confidential unless an agreement has been made in advance. Use numbers instead of names (confidential – can be traced back to names, anonymous – cannot be traced back) Observations – should only be made in public places where people might expect to be seen by strangers. Giving advice – if evidence of a psychological or physical problem of which a participant is apparently unaware is obtained the investigator has a responsibility to inform the participant if he/she believes that by not doing so the participant’s future well being may be endangered. Colleagues – investigators share responsibility. Before starting research psychologists should, seek peer guidance, consult likely participants, follow BPS Code of Ethics, consider alternative methods, establish a cost benefit analysis of short and long term consequences, assume responsibility and gain consent from any ethical committee. If negative effects are found during the research it should be stopped immediately and every effort should be made to correct adverse consequences. Research Method Lab experiments Field/natural experiments Observations Ethical Issue Participants feel pressure to act in a particular way Reluctance to exercise right to withdraw Experimental situation can be stressful Informed consent difficult to get May be unaware of right to withdraw Debriefing is difficult If unaware of observation, issues of informed consent, confidentiality and invasion of privacy Correlational analysis Questionnaires/interviews Case studies Correlations may be interpreted incorrectly by the public Confidentiality must be maintained Right to withdraw information on embarrassing topics Issues of confidentiality and invasion of privacy Sampling The sample should be representative of the target population. This is the group of individuals the researcher is interested in. Generally the larger the sample the better. Random sampling. Every member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected. Use computer generated random lists or place all names in target in a hat and pick out required number (still a chance sample could end up biased) but is more likely to be representative and therefore results can be generalised. It can be difficult to get details of the whole target population. Opportunity sampling – select participants who are readily available and willing to take part Volunteer sampling – involves people volunteering to take part Advantages of opportunity and volunteer sampling – easy, practical, cheap. Disadvantages of opportunity and volunteer sampling – Sample likely to be biased so findings may not be generalised to target population. Demand characteristics Guessing the purpose of the research and trying to please the researcher by giving ‘right’ results Guessing the purpose of the research and trying to annoy the researcher by giving ‘wrong’ results the ‘screw you’ effect Acting unnaturally e.g. out of nervousness Acting unnaturally in order to look good –social desirability bias Single blind techniques reduce demand characteristics Investigator effects Physical characteristics of researcher may influence results Other characteristics such as accent, tone of voice, eye-contact, smiling etc. can influence results Investigator may be biased in their interpretation of the data Double blind techniques reduce investigator effects