1.

Research methods

Contents
Experiments ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Self-Reports ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Case Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Observations ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Correlations........................................................................................................................................... 19
Research Processes ............................................................................................................................... 23
Defining, Manipulating And Controlling Variables ............................................................................... 26
Sampling Participants............................................................................................................................ 28
Data And Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 31
Ethical Considerations........................................................................................................................... 37
Evaluating Research: Methodological Issues ........................................................................................ 41

SYL
Experiments
There are primarily 5 research methods in psychology that are used to collect various forms of data
that makes for a case and argument from a psychological perspective.

1. Experiments

2. Self-reports

3. Case Studies

4. Observation

5. Correlations

Experiments

An experiment is an objective, scientific procedure used to make a discovery, run and test a
hypothesis and to present a known fact – to check validity.

An investigation that is conducted to establish a primary cause-and-effect relationship, is called an

experiment. The ‘cause-and-effect’ relationship in question, is basically the direct proportion of both
entities meaning if a cause may occur, so may the effect. This factor is what may explain the onset of
events in the experiment, with the ‘cause’ being the event that triggers another event known as the
“effect”.

By finding out the ‘cause-and-effect’ relationship, the experiment can be designed to manipulate,
isolate and maneuver certain variables to achieve a desired aim of the study.

These variables are known as the ‘Independent Variable’ and the ‘Dependent Variable’. The IV has a
causal effect on the DV – meaning the IV is the variable that researchers systematically use,
manipulate and control and the DV is the variable which bears the effect and thus is measured by
the experimenter.

An example of this would be, how if an experiment is conducted to determine the effect of
increased inclination on the treadmill, on an athlete’s subsequent pace and stamina (as a
conditioning test). The increased inclination which is can be adjusted, manipulated and controlled
time to time, in order to check different scenarios and possibilities (such as categories like ‘low’ and
‘high’) would be the IV in this case. The athlete’s reactionary response which is being measured (his
pace and stamina in the given conditions ‘high’ and ‘low’) would be our DV, which would be
measured by quantitative and objective measures such as the speed monitor, timer and his pulse
rate.

Another important set of variables are; the ‘confounding variable’ which has an unintentional,
undetermined effect on the DV and the ‘extraneous variable’ which could affect the DV but it is a
variable that can be controlled by the experimenter. In reference to the above mentioned example
– an example of the ‘confounding variable’ would be the athlete’s own willingness and ambition to
do the test/challenge which might affect his pace and stamina stats. Whereas, the ‘extraneous
variable’ would be the athlete’s diet routine which is possibly already designed and followed by the
athlete but if interfered with substance abuse like alcohol may alter his performance on the test.

Experimental Designs

This segment of the research method refers to how participants in the study, are assigned to
different settings, environments and scenarios in an experiment.

A lot of the core studies are primarily experiments (either lab or field) and in order understand how
they work, we need to understand the ‘design’ aspect.

There Are Primarily 3 Types Of Experimental Designs:

Repeated Measures Design

This method employs the strategy of using the same group of participants (the same people) in
different conditions and scenarios repeatedly.

For example, a group of participants consists of 20 people and the set of conditions in the
experiments are 2 different ones; Condition A and Condition B. In accordance with this design, all 20
participants will go through Condition A and then the repeating the group of participants as per
design, they will go through Condition B subsequently.

Independent Groups Design

This method employs the strategy of taking the group of participants, randomly dividing them into
different factions and then making them go through the conditions, scenarios so that each
participant may only be in one condition and thus have limited exposure to the aim of the study.
Independent measures involve using two separate groups of participants; one in each condition.
An example of this would be, how a group of participants consists of 20 people, divided into Groups
A and B would go through Condition A and Condition B respectively – one being the main group and
one being the control group who’s variables are different than that of the aforementioned group.

Matched Pair Design

This method employs the strategy of categorizing participants based on similar characteristics and
variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, IQ levels, etc into pairs and then randomly assigning them to
the differing conditions such as Condition A and Condition B in the experiment. One member of each
matched pair must be randomly assigned to the experimental group and the other to the control
group. Each condition uses different participants, but they are matched in terms of similar
variables.

An example of this would be Group A (10 random participants who do not have similar
characteristics) known as the control group and Group B the experimental group (10 participants
matched for differing variables and characteristics) into the set of conditions.

Repeated Measures Design Independent Groups Design Matched Pair Design

Strengths:• Participants are

Strengths:• Different
exposed to only one level of
Strengths:• Less chances of participants are used in each
the IV, hence there are
participant variables, as each level of the experiment so less
reduced Demand
participant experiences all order effects are to be
Characteristics.
levels of the IV. Therefore, it is expected.• Less demand
less likely to misrepresent the characteristics as they do not • Less participant variables
effects of the IV on the experience or witness all because the experimenter
DV. • Fewer people needed to levels of the IV.• Difference has attempted to pair up the
conduct the experiment, in results (an abnormality per participants so that each
hence it is quicker may say) will be detected quickly. condition has people with
warrant faster results in a similar abilities and
study with less logistical issues. characteristics.

• Reduced order effects.

Weaknesses:• Order effects Weakness:• The results may Weakness:• It is extremely

are more likely to follow (the be altered based upon the risky in the sense that the
effects of an experimental factor of Participant Variable, loss of one participant will
order design which may distort given there may be significant warrant the loss of 2
results and thus reduce individual differences on each participants’ data.
validity.) respective level of the IV.
• Its very time consuming.
• Participants may exhibit • More participants are
demand characteristics as they needed to use this
 are familiarized with the experimental design and thus • Also has the chance to
objective of the study. may be more expensive and distort results unless a
time-consuming. reliable and validated
matching criteria is
established as having the
same similarities are very
difficult and rare.

• Small sample size and thus

not generalizable for the
larger context.

The Types Of Experiments

Laboratory Experiments:

In many studies of psychology, experimental procedures are conducted in artificial, controlled

settings such as a laboratory or other settings where controls are applied to administer and
operationalize effective measurements and variables. To put it precisely, a lot of the participants
who part-take in this study are not in their usual environment for the behavior they are being tested
on along with a strict and structured set of controls which govern the situation, which are set up by
the experimenter.

Evaluation:

Strengths Weaknesses

• High controls, meaning more • High controls also mean LOW ecological
controls on extraneous variables from validity.
effecting the DV.
• Participants getting an idea of the aim
• High controls – standardized and the setting might make the results
procedures (more reliable) prone to demand characteristics.

• When variables are controlled and • Low ecological validity also limits
monitored finding out the cause and generalizability of the outcomes to a
effect relationship is faster and real-life context.
easier.
• This makes the findings also prone to
• This improves validity. (Accuracy and researcher bias, a confounding
authenticity of a research) variable.
 Example: (SYL)The study conducted by Milgram et al. which tested ‘The levels of obedience’ –
under an ‘authority figure’ to test his “German Hypothesis”. It was conducted at the Yale
University and the procedure was highly controlled and standardized. With the experimenter
advising verbal prods, the environmental setting of the laboratory. For instance, the interview
was conducted in a room where an ‘electrical shock generator’ was placed which had a range of
15V-450V, which the “teacher” (the fixed participant via ballet draw) would have to use on the
confederate, “the learner” to reprimand him for leaning errors under command from the
experimenter. This makes the procedure highly standardized.

Field Experiments:

A field experiment takes place in a normal and regular environment that is usually the participants’
real-life setting, for the behavior that is being studied. While the IV can still be controlled and
monitored, the influence of extraneous variables cannot be as strictly controlled.

Strengths Weaknesses

• It is harder to control
variables in the study, which
makes it difficult to
standardize and thus to
replicate.
• It has high Ecological Validity, as it is more
reflective of the participant’s behavior in real-
life situations.
• This may threaten credibility
of the study.

• As it is being conducted in a natural setting,

where the participants are unaware of the aim
or the objective of the study, having less • If certain controls are not
exposure to the IV – there is an immunity to established, vital information
Demand Characteristics. and data can be missed out
depending on the scope of
the experiments.

• They are high in generalizability and

representativeness of the group being studied.
• Human Errors in researching
are highly probable, which
are difficult to account for.
 • May raise the ethical issue of
consent as participants are
unaware of them being
studied.

Example: (SYL)In the study by Pillavin et al. the setting of the experiment was that of New York’s
infamous underground subway station and its running train carriages which New Yorkers used
for their everyday commute, to test the theories of “Bystander Apathy” and “Diffusion of
Responsibility” – in an emergency situation. With the pre-set controls (variables) involved the
victim being Male, of black/white ethnicity, drunk or ill and all in the same standardized attire.

The researchers were 2 males and 2 females (to limit gender and researcher bias) and were
instructed to complete the whole experimental procedure on a pre-scheduled 7.5 minute train
circuit to record and asses participant behavior.

Moreover, “Victim” behavior and “Helper” behavior were modelled and staged respectively. The
criteria of participant behavior (voluntary helping) was also operationalized respectively as of
that in help initiated in Critical Area -‘Early (70 secs) and Late (150 secs)’ and Adjacent Area –
‘Early (70 secs) and Late (150 secs). The spontaneity of the public’s helping or neglecting
behavior based upon the named variables in their natural, habitual setting makes this a field
experiment, with high ecological validity.

Natural Experiments

A natural experiment (like a field experiment) is conducted in the participant’s natural, every-day life
setting where they are unaware that they are being researched making it a covert observation.

However, here the experiments have no control over the monitoring or manipulation of variables or
the levels of the IV. They happen, change and occur by themselves and so do the differences and
variations in the experiment – meaning that the IV is naturally occurring. This according to many
psychologists deems this type of experiment “untrue” as the researcher cannot assess,
operationalized or control the variables.

Strengths Weaknesses

• Possibly more time-consuming

• Has extremely high ecological validity and and expensive than lab or field
representativeness as participants are experiments.
exhibiting the most natural of their behavior
patterns.
 • There is no control over the
variables in the study – which
may expose it to multiple
• Less prone to demand characteristics as it is a
limitations:
covert observation.
- Standardization and replication-
Credibility- Researcher bias-Validity of
the DV- Generalizability of the results.
• Less prospects of standardizing or controlling
procedures which may add confounding
variables, which may alter the result of the
experiment entirely.

• Low validity.

Example: Non-SYLIn a study by Hodges and Tizard et al. which was aimed at investigating the
effects of: institutional upbringing on later attachments, of privation on later social and
emotional development, if the effects of privation can be reversed – on 65 kids in residential
nurseries since they were a couple of months old.

It was primarily a longitudinal study, and a natural experiment where the IV (what happened to
the children at age 4) followed naturally. The children were assessed for social and emotional
competence at four, eight and sixteen years old which comprised of interviewing the children
and their parents and teachers with a set of questionnaires.

The care provided was good, but they were not encouraged to form attachments with the
children (i.e. privation transpired).At age 4, almost 24 kids were adopted, 15 were restored to
their actual, original homes, and the rest stayed in institutions. The control group was closely
accorded the experimental group - in sibling number, home location (London), parental
profession, situation in family, age, gender etc.

Experiments And Ethics

In laboratory experiments, where observations are overt – the participant can be promptly asked for
their informed consent. However, in order to lessen the probablity of demand characteristics and to
hid the aim of the research, the particiapnts may possibly be decieved. It is imperative that after the
experiement has concluded, the participants are apologized to for being lied to and then be told the
the aim of the research. This is known as debriefing.

Whereas, in Field and Natural experiments, because the observation is covert it is highly unlikely
that the participants are aware of the situation (the experiment) taking place. The ethical issue arises
when considering the withdrawl rights in a covert scenario.
Because they do not know the implications or the effects of the procedure in the experiement they
will also not know when to withdraw and backout in order to protect themselves from plausible
physical and psychological harm.

To maintain objective integrity of the experiment, privacy and confidentiality is a necessity in the
cases. In lab experiments, confidentiality can be respected as if there are interviews and
questionnares they are most probably pre-planned and set carefully with the prospect in mind.

However, the invasion of privacy is a risk when considering field or natural experiments, as they are
usually covert but are in the daily, personal spaces of the participants’ lives.

Confidentiality however, can be respected in all the experiements by keeping their participation (via
names and other identity details) anonyomous. The prospect of them having any trace or link to the
study in the future, which might reveal sensitive information such as their workplace, home or name
- risking compromosing classified participation (confidentiality) must also be taken care of when
designing a study.

Ethical Considerations In Psychology:

• Informed Consent

• Deception and Debriefing

• Withdrawal rights (participant choice)

• Protection from physical harm

• Protection from psychological harm

• Confidentiality

• Privacy
Self-Reports
This segment of the research refers to how the participant provides/dispenses information about
themselves to the researcher directly. It is important to distinguish this from other information data
colleecting methods such as experiments or observations – with the distinguishing factor being that
of; informed consent where the participant knows he’s in a study. Self-report measureses usually
consist of 2 techniques, questionnaires and interviews, both of which include an inquiry viaasking
questions.

Quesionnares

In a questionnare, the questions are presented to the participant in a written form either online or
on paper. While there are serveral different types of questions – the two most significant are closed
questions which are close-ended i.e they have a fixed and predetermined response set such as
“Yes/No”, and then there are open-ended questions which ask for descriptive, qualitative responses
that are individual to the participant themselves.

Close Quessionares take on the form of simple choices such as “YES/NO” or ones that are specific to
a sectoor of information. Such as; “What is your gender: Male/Female” and etc.

Open Questionnares are for the participant to give promts which detail information with
descriptions and evaluations. They naturally contain more in-depth quality to them (categorizing
them as qualitiative data) which aid in exploring and navigating different dimesions of of the reasons
behind a particular behaviour, cognition, reasoning or emotion. The keywords consist of “Why..” or
“Describe..”.

Rating Scales in Questionnares: One of the most widely used rating scale is the psychometric
measurement tool known as Likert Scale. It is a closed questionnare which is usually used to assess
and quantify variables such as attitude, frequency, quality, importance, agreement/disagreement,
likelihood, severity and etc in terms of differing factors. The participants are asked to respond on a
numbered scale (eg. 1-5) with 1 being the weakest at the range and 5 being the strongest in the
range. The scores on this scale is indicative of how strongly a participant feels about something,
therefore giving us more insignt into the matter. Furthermore, the data type is quantitative which is
easier to assess statistically and thus improves the chances of managing, organizing and categorizing
data related to the study. It is however worth mentioning that the participants often opt for
neutrality in situations like these which may hinder the researching processes.

Advantages Disadvantages

• Participants may respond to demand

• Quick and easy for experiments.
characteristics.
• Provides quantitative data, easier to
• This threatens validity.
analysize and organize data.
• The data it provides is quantitative
• It is easier to summarize and distribute
and not in depth which may make
data.
them vague.
• When the patient’s privacy (anonymity)
•
is respcted then this also reduces social
desirability bias which thus – increases • It gives a limited perspective of
validity. research, seeing as the options are
pre-written for the participants to
• It is replicable.
choose from.

Example:

A study by Laney et al. which tested “False Memories” this study used the Likert scale on the
‘Restaurant questionnare’ which promted particpants to rate it on a 1-8 scale for 24 items in
terms of ‘Loving asparagus the first time you tried it’ and then on the ‘Food History Inventory’
which prompted participants to similarily rate it on a 1-8 scale in terms of ‘likeliness’.

A Study conducted by Bandura et al. which tested the ‘social learning theory’ – the children’s
behaviour was rated on a scale of 1-5 in terms of ‘aggression’ to the various groups the children
were divided into.

Interviews

The format that an interview typically follows is that the interviewer/researcher is face-to-face with
the interviewee/participant. Interviews can be conducted through any medium that allows for the
reception of audio and video simultaneously. A question and answer session is followed and
responses are noted. Interviews are generally more open and allow for more collection of qualitative
data. There are however, different types/formats of interviews.

Structured Interview Unstructured Interview Semi-structured Interview

 • This contains a mix
of fixed questions
• The questions asked and improvisational
are common among ones.
all participants with
• This warrants that
the order of them • The questions are not in data can be
being fixed. a pre-determined compared via fixed
• There may even be format. They are flexible questions and also
specific instructions according to what the that to gather more
for the researcher participant says and thus clarity about a
i.e body language questions may be certain topic an
(relaxed or strict), different for each improve question
dress code and participant. It however there too.
overall demeanor – may be hard to collect
and categorize data and • Edits are thus
depending on the
consequently harder to possible and this
kind of response
compare. allows the
they might want to
researcher to
prompt. • It has no limitations, no develop ideas that
• Verbal standardization. explore perhaps
questionnaire – the underlying issues
questions are and latent hints to
standardized. making correlations
or causal
relationships.

Advantages of Self-reports

• Participants are given the chance to express a wide range of feelings, thoughts and then
explain them.

• The data is rich, detailed – qualitative data (when unstructured methods are used)

• The data is numeric, easier to analyse and statistically relevant – quantitative data(when
close-ended, stuctured methods are used)

• A large sample can be dealt with quickly and efficeintly which may increase
represenativesness and generalizability.

• They are easy to replicate.

Disadvantages of Self-reports

• Closed questions often limit the range of expression of a participant which may miss out vital
information.
 • Participants may provide socially desriable responses (demand characteristics may surface) if
they are aware of the objective of the research.

• There are high chances of validity being low as a limited range of response set might not
reflect a participant’s actual viewpoint and they may be compelled to answer differently.

• Researcher have to choose carefully when asking questions, especially leading ones.

• Open-ended questions can be time-consuming to analyse.

• Withdrawl is quite common, especially in the cases of telephonic interviews.

They are less objective and thus difficult to standardize.

Case Studies
A case study is essentially a detailed investigation which goes on for a certain extended period of
time which focuses on one subject. It is however not exclusive to one person – it may be an
organization, a family, etc. They involve a ‘longitudinal research’ which often used in therapies,
includes a non-constricted time-limit meaning it can go on for months and in some cases even years,
which then develops the study based on that particular subject which is being used to study a
particular behaviour. It is however not solely used for therapeutic purposes.

The data gathered is detailed and in-depth which may be via different techniques such as
questionnares, observations and interviews. Case studies are particularly useful for looking into
rarities and anomalies where a detailed description is necessary which can thus track for eg. The
disorder of a child, improvement and decline and his/her progress.

Example:

In a case study by Saavedra and Silverman which was the case study of a child with button phobia
(koumpounophobia) who associated disgust and fear with buttons. Thus was a clinical study where a
Hispanic boy aged 9 was being treated for a period of 12 months with a 6 month checked up
(informed consent). During this period of time the child was asked to construct a hierarchy of fear
based on 8 point scale of fear (quantitative data but subjective). His results however were not
representative and thus not generalizable.

Advantages of Case Studies Disadvantages of Case Studies

• Situations where it is logistically • Case studies very rarely produce quantitative

difficult or impossible to have a data sufficent enough for statistical analyisis
large participant sample – case – which brings in the argument of this being
studies are ideal In those a mere collection of anecdotal evidence
situations that allow behaviours (evidence that is collected without strict
to be studied in detail. controls or support, in a casual manner
which is reliant heavily on personal
• Longitudinal study results in the
testimony.)
collection of both quantitaive
data and qualitative data (rich • These often require a quite intense and
and detailed), which may intimate relationship between the particpant
measure and quantify and the researcher and thus the problem of
developing behaviours. objectivity arises. They may develop opinions
that directly influence results gathered as
• Sample may be self-selecting so
they might be emotionally involved.
this frees the researcher up
from ethical considerations such • Conclusive decisions cannot be made as it
as informed consent, privacy only include very few or one participant.
and confidentiality. Non-generalizable.
• Ecological validity is usually • Because the participant is unique, this might
quite high, as the behaviour that make researchers proceed with invalid
is being studied is a part of procedures and may draw false conclusions,
everyday life. making assumptions on lackluster grounds of
evidence.
Observations
Observations are the procedure of watching and then consequently recording and documenting the
behaviour of the human or animal participants. This usually has 2 standard ways; A naturalistic
observation is conducted in the participants’ normal atmosphere without any intereference from the
researcher (who are observing) them in their usual physical and natural enviornment. A controlled
observation is done mostly in an artificial situation such as a laboratory but it is also possible in a
participants; natural envionment but with strict controls.

If one consideres the whole spectrum of possible behaviours it is a possibility that observations may
be non-focused – if this lack of strict controls continues then it is deemed an unstructured
observation.

A structured observation however is designed to concentrate on a specific set and range of

behaviours, record them and then proceed to categorize them. This also helps for the testing and
verification of the study’s reliability via a technique called inter-rated reliability (the consensus of 2
or more experimenters to verify the validity of the study by judging on the degree of agreeement in
their respective research results via the same, common methods.)

Observations are often also conducted in social settings, either participant or non participant. A
participant observer is a part of the observed situation/setting. Whereas, a non-participant observer
does not become a part of the observed situation that is being studied which is done by observing
through a one-way-glass or by staying reserved from the group of participants.

Example:

Bandura et al. tested the extent a ‘role model’ has on a child’s spectrum of agression and agression
being socially learned. He observed the children through a two-way mirror along with instructions of
participant observer which included their sex, step-by-step model behaviour and verbal prompts of
agression and a 5-point scale of agfression on which the observers recorded children making it a
structured observation, one with strict controls.

• Event sampling: When the experimenter is looking for as particular behavior and a tally chart
or documenting record is kept of every instance of that behavior.

• Time Sampling: When the experimenter/observes notes down the behavior at designated,
certain times. (eg, a 10-second interval)

Observers often variate their stance as:

• Overt observers: The observers are openly watching and documenting the participant behaviour,
with the participant knowing that they are in a study being observed on different scales. Their
behaviour, attire is indicative of them being observers.

• Covert observers: The observers are NOT openly watching and documentating the participant
behaviour, without the participant’s consent as they cannot be aware they are being observed (if
vice versa that would make the particpants exhibit demand characteristics).

Overt Observation:

Advantages Disadvantages

• A very high risk of demand

• Does not raise ethical concerns over the
characteristics which lowers
issues of deception, informed consent or
validity.
even privacy.
• High risk of incurring socially
• It is practical and thus can be conducted
desirable responses from the
over an extended period of time.
participants.
• The researcher can make notes and
• The results may not always be
record details without having to rely on
representative which questions the
memory as they don’t have to worry
credibility of the research.
about blowing their cover.
• Allows for techniques like ‘time
• It is natural and researchers can ask a
sampling’ and ‘event sampling’
number of questions (structured
which ensure a structure to the
observation)
observation

Covert Observation

Advantages Disadvantages

• Raises ethical issues such as

• Increases validity – less or no exposure informed consent, deception and
to aim and thus demand characteristics privacy of the particpant.

• Reduced effects of social desirability. • Patients may feel distress at the

violation of their privacy which again
• They can be better controlled and
raises ethical concerns.
moniotored as the researcher can dig
deeper and assess more. • The legality of this is often
questioned.
• There is ahigh rate of inter-rate
reliability as two researchers may even • There is laso the risk of identity
be simultaneously observing being unveiled which would discredit
the whole operation.
 • Hard to sustain or conduct over a
long period of time.

Advantages of Observations:

• The observed behavior is natural, authentic as they are unaware – this increases ecological
validity.

• The data collected is often quantitative though structured controls which has clearly defined
categories is on terms with being objective and statistically comprehendible via analysis.

• Chances gathering extremely rich data is very high if the observation is unstructured.

• If participants are unaware, risk of inducing demand characteristics is improbable which

increases validity.

Disadvantages of Observations:

• The participant cannot explain or elaborate for the cause of them behaving a certain way as
it is a subjective approach (which when asked might expose the aim of the research).

• Observations may not be reliable due to natural and logistical issues such as view
obstruction, missing out on details, relying on memory and etc.

• Naturalistic observations make it hard for controls to be established and this in turn, makes
it harder to control confounding variables – making it difficult to formulate a cause-and-
effect relationship.

• Difficulty in replication.

Various ethical issues arise – deception, lack of informed consent as people are being observed
without their permission.
Correlations
The technique which is used to examine and investigate a potential link between two measured
variables is called a correlational analysis.

It is important to note how correlations are useful when it is only possible to measure variables
rather than manipulate them. That is because in that situation a cause-and-effect relationship does
not exist and thus an experiment cannot be conducted. Furthermore, if and any link is found
between two variables in a correlation cannot be assumed to be a causal relationship. We cannot
assume that one variable is the reason that there is change in another variable.

For example:

If we are to investigate a relationship between ‘unemployment’ and ‘rate of criminal activity’ then it
is important to operationalize them, so that they may be measured as it is nearly impossible to
manipulate them practically. That is because of the extent of their scope and also how there may be
other influencing factors such as poverty, social atmosphere, etc. Thus, a cause cannot be
determined.

In order to look for or establishing a correlation between two variables, each variable must exist
over a range/spectrum and it must be possible to measure them numerically. To collect data and
information for correlations all of the above mentioned research methods are used (self-reports,
observations, etc.

It is important to note that before assuming that one correlation is the cause of increase in a variable
which in turn has caused an increase in the other variable – there are other factor factors that might
respectively cause changes in both variables.

All that is possible to be established is that the two variables that exist in a relationship vary
together, not that there exists a causal relationship between them, as it even may coincidental. As a
result, in a correlation there are ‘measured variables’ or ‘co-variables’ rather than dependent and
independent variables.

In order to make decisions or conclusions about causality, an experiment has to be conducted so

that there is more certainty about the manipulation of one variable that has caused the change in
the other. However, if a correlational study is conducted and it is found that there is no linkage
between the two variables, then it is possible to establish that there is no causal relationship.

The relationship’s nature between the two variables in a correlation can be described in terms of its
directions – positive or negative.
In a positive correlation, the two variables present increase together, in the same direction, so
higher values on one variable consequently correspond with higher value on the other (directly
proportional). For example, a positive correlation would be between exposure to aggressive models
and violent behavior – greater exposure to aggressive models would result in increased violent
behavior (as witnessed in Bandura et al.’s study).

In a negative correlation, the two variables present increase and decrease together consequently
(inversely proportional). Higher values on one variable consequently correspond with lower value on
the other. For example, a negative correlation might exist between ‘Obesity’ and ‘Low income’ –
with higher levels of obesity being observed with lower levels of income, given low-quality food with
next to zero nutritional value is often cheap such as fast food, candy, etc.

Correlational Coefficient

It is a number between -1 and +1 that states how strong a correlation is, if it is close to 0 then there
is very little connection between the two variables at all.

If it is approaching +1 there is a positive If it is approaching -1 then there is a negative

correlation aka the variables are directly correlation aka the variables are inversely
proportionate, with the both of them proportionate, with the both of
increasing as a consequence of one’s increasing/decreasing as a consequence of the
increment. (or decrement). other decreasing/increasing.
Evaluating correlations

A correlational study can only be effective/valid if the measures of both variables test real
occurrences. For this, the variables must be clearly well-defined and relate directly to the
relationship that is being investigated.

The reliability of the correlation is dependent on the consistency of the variables. For some
correlations, such as those which utilize scientific scales – the measures will be high in reliability (as
they can be tested again and results will be objective).

For other cases, in which variables were measured using techniques such as self-reports or
observations, there is the plausible risk that reliability will be lower (as it will be difficult to replicate
and results will be subjective).

One of the most important aspect to consider with correlations is that conclusions do not necessarily
reflect a causal relationship. (CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION.)

Correlations are however a good opening argument for conducting or studying a research. They can
indicate and even confirm that whether an existing relationship might be worth investigating with
methods of research such as experiments. They are useful because they facilitate researchers to
explore and then navigate problems (hypothetically) when it is not practically or ethically possible to
conduct experiments.

Advantages:

• The main straight of a correlation is that it can provide precise information about the degree of a
relationship’s variables.

• Study behavior that is otherwise difficult/impossible to study.

• Collect quantitative data for statistical analysis which will help in determining whether the data
supports the study or not.

Disadvantages:

• The main weakness of a correlation is that it is inconclusive i.e. it cannot show cause-and-effect
(which variables control which).

• No control over other influencing factors and variables.

Things To Remember:
 • Cause-and-effect relationship/Causal relationship: It is relationship where one
event/instance causes another one to happen. The cause however, has to occur before the
event. This explains the relationship.

• Correlation: It is the relationship where the two present variables are used to predict and
examine a relationship, to explain it.

Correlation Does Not Mean Causation.

Research Processes
Research Processes focuses in on some of the key aspects that comprise of psychology and the
processes of research

1. Developing an ‘Aim and Hypothesis’

2. Defining, manipulating, measuring and controlling variables

3. Ethical Considerations

4. Participant Selection

5. Data analysis and forming conclusions

6. Evaluating the research

Aims and Hypothesis

Aims:

An ‘aim’ is what generally tells us the purpose of the investigation or what the study intends to show
or discover. They help to explain the reasons that why a particular hypothesis is being investigated,
providing clause for ‘why actually’ the study is being carried out.

Perhaps the first step that needs to be taken when designing an experimental (or even a non-
experimental study) is decide and establish the aims and hypothesis of the study. Therefore, an aim
tells us why a study is being conducted and the hypothesis tells us what the study is about.

Hypothesis:

A hypothesis is a ‘testable’ statement that is used to make the research more precise/exact - in
essence it is more specific than the aim of a research. This is devised by psychologists so that they’re
clear o what they want to ‘prove’ in the given research.

It should ideally provide more detail about the variables being investigated, should also be
‘falsifiable’ as it is ‘tested’. The main hypothesis can be written in various ways. They also may differ
in terms of the nature of predictions/estimation they make about the results and conclusions of an
investigation.

The Types Of Hypothesis:

Non-directional hypothesis:

A non-directional hypothesis (also known as the two-tailed hypothesis) is used to determine the
change in the Independent Variable (IV) and Dependent Variable (DV) - it does however not indicate
the direction of change i.e whether or not the effect results in an increase or decrease.

This type of hypothesis is usually chosen if the effect of a certain variable is being used for the first
time, there are therefore no previous evidence to suggest what the results might be.

Conclusively, a non-directional hypothesis in a correlational study predicts that there will exist a
relationship between the two measured variables and not the direction.

Example:

A hypothesis states that there could be a difference between the levels of concentration of students
who study in a well-lit room in contrast to a moderately lit room - with multiple factors influencing
the outcome of the concentration levels (such as levels of brightness growing to be annoying and
mental disturbance and consequently low lights serving as a clause for distraction and lack of
attention.) - It predicts a condition yes, but not which one will be better at increasing concentration.

Directional Hypothesis:

When ‘previous evidence’ or ‘previous research’ suggests the direction of an effect (of the IV’s on
the DV), it is then when a Directional hypothesis is used. This is also known as the ‘one-tailed’
hypothesis.

This has different meanings when it comes to an experimental study and a correlational study – in an
experiment the ‘best’ condition is to be determined while in a correlation the factor of the
correlation being positive or negative stands.

Example:

If we refer to the aforementioned example there might be evidence that a well-lit room determines
more linear and focused attention as things are visually clearer. This is a directional prediction and
thus the hypothesis might be: Students studying in a well-lit room have higher levels of
concentration. It is also possible that a contrasting hypothesis could be tested as a directional
hypothesis i.e students studying in a moderately lit room have higher levels of concentration.

In a correlational study however – If the case of a correlation between the amount of time a child
spends consuming electronic media vs analogue, print media and their respective IQ levels.
Conventionally, the correlation would be negative as in the more time mindlessly consumed via e-
media, the lower the IQ levels. The same could be said about the child consuming too much print
media (that would however be conventionally positive as longer attention spans do exist). However,
a positive correlation would be the more time a child spends consuming e-media, the higher IQ
levels (in the case that the child benefits from technology-based and interactive being spatially
intelligent that benefit from both audio and video and negative in the case that the child gets bored
quickly looking at redundant rote-structured learning.) It is important to remember that your
hypothesis should not say that one factor instigates a change in the other.

Null Hypothesis:

This is implied when any difference between the IV and the DV is so insignificant that it is likely to be
caused by chance/coincidence. A null hypothesis is written with this in mind: “There will be no
difference in the DV between condition Y and Condition Z or “Any difference in the DV between
condition Y and Condition Z is due to chance/coincidence”. Correlational studies need a null
hypothesis because they predict the scenarios of no link or pure chance.

It is important to note and state both levels of the IV and DV otherwise your null hypothesis will not
make any sense. A meaningless null hypothesis would be: “There is no difference between in
learning via e-media and learning via print media.”
Defining, Manipulating And Controlling Variables
Usually how an experiment goes is having IVs and DVs as well as some extraneous variables that are
not practically possible to control. In correlation, these are called the two determined variables.
Experiments look for changes and variations in the DV between two or more than two, levels of the
IV which are put down by the experimenter/researcher.

The essential aspect is for the IV to be concretely defined or better, operationalized so that the
manipulation of the conditions, project the intended effects.

To make it clear:

Variables are factors that are prone to change or can be changed and moulded.

Operationalizing: Involves defining each variable of interest in terms of the operationalization in

terms of the operations taken to ‘measure’ it. This allows vague components to be empirically
measured and observed.

Example:

Piliavin et al: Victim’s responsibility operationalized as:

• Carrying a cane (ill condition)

• Smelling of alcohol and carrying the alcoholic vessel in a brown paper bag.

Victim’s Race operationalized as:

• Black (Male)

• White (Male)

Controlling Variables And Standardizing The Procedures

In order to be surer about their research’s findings, variables need to be controlled. Specifically, in
experiments where extraneous variables are likely to disrupt and complicate the results and
distorting them for interpretation.
Confounding Variables, can either work against the reaction of the IV or in favour by increasing the
intended/expected outcome of the IV because they selectively act on DVs. Thus, they serve as a
“consequential effect” of the IV and you are left with no chance of knowing what caused the
change.

Extraneous Variables which randomly effect all levels of the IV aren’t so problematic. The difficult
part is to identify and select which variables to manage before the experiment launches. It is
however. Also, important to note how if extraneous variables are not recognized and acknowledged
beforehand, they become uncontrollable variables, which would make the results difficult to be
construed as it would be difficult to distinguish the reactions/effects of the IV from those of other
variables that effect the DV.

Standardization:

There are controls present that ensure that IVs represent what they are designed to I.e the
differences between them will produce the intended scenarios to examine the hypothesis – ensuring
validity and reliability. This enables every participant in the study to be treated equally so that no
participant variable arises. This is called standardization.

This is achieved by having a unified, standardized set of instructions, that provide the same
instructions to every participant involved in the study. For instance, a 10-question questionnaire
which asks about people’s dietary habits – all the participants should be told how to answer it only
strictly regarding their food patterns, so if any social desirability is there, it should be equal.

Procedures also need to be strictly standardized - this involves having equipment, tests and designs
that are consistent, measuring the same variable every time and always do so in the exact, identical
way. Assess the questionnaire about people’s dietary habits again. They should again focus on
strictly people’s food consumption patterns rather than why food patterns are like that. It is related
but not necessary to the context.

In laboratory experiments, standardization is easier because variables such as equipment are better
and more easily controlled. An example of this would be the stopwatch which is used to regulate
time intervals in the experiment or FMRI Brain scans which is an objective measure. They do
however also have to be performed in a standardized manner for them to be interpreted. The
controls used should be appropriated and be taught how to implement.
Sampling Participants
A population by definition is a group of people with one or more characteristics in common. A
population of people can also be defined as people who share a certain interest (eg. Cricket fans),
have a common feature (eg. Left-handed people). The sample of that population is what’s recruited
in a research or experiment.

The demographic taken should represent the population it's taken from so the findings of the
research are representative and later generalizable. Target population of the study should also be
recognized early on so that the sample the researcher chooses should be relevant and
representative.

Important things to consider when sampling:

• Sample details such as age, ethnicity, gender. They are basic essentials that should always be
considered.

• Sample details such as socio-economic standing, employment, education, occupation,

geographical location.

• Sample size. (Should be balanced in terms of being representative)

• Small samples usually are less reliable and less representative and thus generally less valid to the
clause of research.

Sampling Techniques

Opportunity Sampling:

An opportunity sample involves the researcher approaching people who are easy to find and easily
available, such as students who are studying mathematics in the same university department. If a
researcher is however interested in the ‘general demographic/public’ then it is possible for the
researcher to approach people in places such as parks, student common rooms, shopping malls and
etc.

Volunteer sampling (self-selecting sampling):

This usually revolves around researcher and experimenters advertising for participants. An advert
could usually appear in a newspaper or on notice boards, online too. The people who reply are ‘self-
selecting’ - that is they willingly volunteer themselves for the research. Sometimes volunteers are
not given incentives at all, neither credentialled nor paid, often they are given a small amount of
both or one of the other.

Random Sampling:

In this type of sampling technique each participant is given the equal chance of being selected from
the target population. If the target population is ‘factory workers’ and there are 800 of them – the
only way to actually randomly select the sample is to put all 800 names together and pick out the
first 20, 30 names (depending on the required sample size of the study).

Opportunity Sampling Volunteer sampling Random Sampling

Advantages:
Advantages: Advantages:
• They are more likely
• It is relatively quick • They are useful when to be representative
and easy to recruit the research requires than opportunity or
participants. A large, participants that are self-selecting samples
representative specific to the needs of as the clause for bias
sample can be the experiment. does not exist as the
obtained without a
• Recruiting participants selection is up to
lot of effort.
is easier because the chance, random.
• It is convenient for advert can easily be • It is efficient if a
the researcher and placed in print media, certain demographic
the participant as in social media and digital is to be studied and
some cases – there media which has a out of that lot the
are also incentives. large enough reach. participants are
• It is less time- selected at random.
consuming.

Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
• Participants in the • This is expensive Disadvantages:
study are unlikely to (adverts in media • It is however often
be actually would cost a lot of time-consuming when
representative of capital investment) and a large target
the target in some cases it would population is
population in the take even more effort considered. If for
sense that it could to convince the example not all
be biased (if they’re participant to be in the names of the
paid or given credits study. potential participant
to), when the
pool, it would be
researcher chooses • People may not see the difficult to conduct a
the sample. advert, they might random sample.
ignore it, they might
• The chance of equal
not reply even after
opportunity in the
seeing it.
random selection
• Extraneous variables process if often too
such as the actual idealistic in the sense
eligibility criteria of the that not everybody
participants being might be inclined to
different from what’s fully participate. It is
actually required. possible for them to
leave and then for the
• No way to assure the
researcher to recruit
representativeness of
and replace a new
the target population.
participant.
• Plausible demand
• This might bias the
characteristics and
sample.
social desirability is
risked to effect as the
findings in the case
where an incentive is
involved when they
volunteer.
Data And Data Analysis
Psychological research often requires a numerical and quantitative organization of results that they
get from their findings – the results in question is called ‘raw data’. To categorize large findings in
these scenarios, it is often mathematically simplified and visually represented via graphs.

Quantitative Data And Qualitative Data:

The numerical results collected by psychologists is known as ‘quantitative data’, the data which is
detailed and descriptive is called ‘qualitative data’. Quantitative data indicates the quantity of the
psychological measure I.e. the strength or amount of a response and tends to be measured on
scales, such as time, or as numeric score on tests such as Personality, IQ and T-maze tests.

Quantitative data is associated with experiments and correlations which use numeric scales but it is
also possible to collect quantitative data from observations and interviews.

Quantitative Data Qualitative Data

Strengths: Strengths:

• It usually uses objective measures • Data is often valid because it is descriptive

and scales. and detailed, not limited by fixed choices.

• They are reliable (can be tested • Can often help researchers control certain
repeatedly) aka replicated. variables by making them aware of it (eg.
Childhood, family) allowing them to
• Quicker to analyse statistically
estimate cause and effects.
when there are large volumes of
data involved – in terms of • Data is more in-depth which inhibits a
statistical comparison. more deeper understanding of the study.

Weaknesses: Weaknesses:

• This method of data collection • While estimating the mean, often

often limits responses so there is information that is unnecessary but
an aspect of the findings being important may be ignore under the
less valid and less representative. pretence of skimming/structuring data via
No explanation of ‘why’. taking out the aggregate aka mean.

• Poor comprehension and • It is subjective to the studies/experiments,

interpretation of statistical data cannot be usually generalized for the larger
may lead to the poor application context.
of this to practical effect in life.
• Data may have bias – of both the
• Large samples are needed for the participant and researcher. This may
findings to be generalizable. render data invalid.
 • Difficult to statistically analyse and
comprehend.

• Difficult to replicate without strict

standardization and thus low reliability.

Example:

An example of quantitative data would be a total number of responses recorded of a certain

behaviour (such as a variation of facial expressions on a scale) during an interview.

The sources of quantitative data are usually stictly objective as the measure used (closed
questionnaires, scales, etc) don’t really need much interpretation. These measures are thus reliable.

An example of qualitative data would be a verbal account of an incident that the participant gives in
an interview. The data is more in-depth. This is gathered via open-question questionnaires,
interviews and case studies. This while does make the data subjective and difficult to interpret, it is
still valid in terms of being accurate in the aim.

Data Analysis:

Measures of central tendency:

A set of quantitative results can be boiled down to represent the middle score and an aggregate –
this is known as measures of central tendency.

The Mode:

The mode is most the frequently repeated score, number in a data set. There can be more than 2
modes. It is unaffected by extreme scores and it is useful to observe repetitive behavioural patterns.
An example of this would be Milgram’s study where there was a modal value of the voltage scale
that was frequented on participants.

Limitations of using this measure is that it offers no insight about the other scores, it isn’t very
‘central’, it is also very fluctuating from one sample to another.

Example:

545350,8,7,7,7,7,0. - the mode is 7.

The Median:

Unlike the mode, the median cannot be used with data indiscrete categories as it is only used with
numerical data on a linear scale. To find the median, all the scores in the data set are put in a list
from smallest to the largest. The middle one in the list is called the ‘median’. To configure this, all
scores are arranged from ascending order – the middle number in this is the median value. If there
are an even number of participants, in which case there are two numbers in the middle, these are
added together and then divide by 2.

In essence, the median value is the halfway point that separates the lower quartile from the upper
quartile. It is unaffected by extremes, in the sense that there is no distortion of results. It however
can be misleading when there are only a few scores and doesn’t take into account most of them.

Example:

Score set: 3,4,7,8,9,0,2,2,6 – median being 9.

Score set: 2,6,8,10,13,16 – median being = 8+10/2 = 9.

Mean:

The mean is the measure of central tendency that we usually call the ‘average’. It can only be used
with numerical data from linear scales. The mean is worked out by adding up all the scores in the
data set and dividing them by the total number of scores. It is the most thorough and informative
measure of central tendency as it takes into account all scores. There is however the probability of it
giving a distorted result if there are any anomalous scores.

It is done by adding up all the values to find a total, dividing the value by the number of values added
together that were present.

Example:

2+4+6+8+10+12/6= 7 – the mean value.

Measures of Spread

This indicates how far spread, dispersed and varied data is within a set. If two data sets are the same
size, with the same mean, they could still avry in terms of how close the majority of data points were
to that average. Differences such as this are described by measures of spread: the range and the
standard deviation.
The range:

It is the simplest measure of spread.

To calculate:

1. Find the largest and smallest value in the set of data.

2. Subtract the smallest value from the largest value and add 1.

Conventionally, the addition of 1 is not done. In psychological research this is done so that we
measure the gaps between points, not the points themselves.

The Standard Deviation:

In the same way that the mean can tell us more than the mode, a measure of spread called the
standard deviation can tell us more than the range. Range than looking only at the extremes of the
data set, the standard deviation takes into account the difference between each data point and the
mean – this is known as deviation from the standard.

As the standard deviation tells us the spread of a group, groups with scores that are more widely
dispersed have a larger standard deviation. When the standard deviations of two groups are similar,
this indicates they have a similar variation around the mean/average.

Graphs:

This is used to visually illustrate data, with a variety of them for different purposes. The ones being
included in our syllabus being Bar charts, Histograms and scatter graphs.

Bar Charts:

A bar chart is used when data is in separate categories rather than a continuous scale. Bar charts are
therefore used for the totals of data collected in named categories and for all measures of central
tendency.
The bars on a bar chart must be separate. The x-axis represents distinct groups of values (such as the
DV) and not a linear scale. For an experiment – the IV levels are put on the Y-axis while the DV levels
are put on the x-axis.

Histograms:

Histograms are useful to show the pattern in whole data set, where the data is continuous in which
case the data is being measured on a scale rather than distinct categories. A histogram may be used
to illustrate the distribution of a set of scores. In this case, the DV is plotted upon the x-axis (these
may be grouped categorically) while the frequency of each score is plotted along the y-axis. As a
scale represented on the x-axis is continuous the bars are drawn next to each other, with no
gap. Thus, if a category has no score, it must be left to shown as empty.

Scatter Graphs:

The results which are collected from a correlational study are presented on a scatter graph. To
construct a scatter graph, a dot is marked at a point where the participant’s score on each variable
cross, there is also the ‘line of best fit’ reoccurring on a scatter graph. The position of this line is
calculated and its line is drawn so that it comes close to as many ‘points’ as possible. In the case of a
strong correlation, all the data points lie near/close to the line whereas in a weak correlation’ its vice
versa – they are more spread out. When there is no correlation, a concrete line is not formed.
It is also a significant aspect to keep in mind that correlation does mean causation; we cannot
determine causality from the findings. Scatter graphs thus, only do so much as to explore and tell us
about the relationship between variables. An experiment could help us find cause however.
Ethical Considerations
Experiments and studies conducted using humans or animals have the potential to cause concerns
about the welfare of the participants – these are called ethical issues. There are certain problems
that may arise when the nature of the study is put into context – such as psychological discomfort,
harm, stress, the procedure’s nature, the need to lie to hide the aim of the study. Ethical issues may
also arise from the implications of their research, for example the possibility of results having a
negative impact on the society.

To regulate these concerns, organizations and council bodies exist which produce a code of conduct,
with rules such as approval charters from the governing bodies (such as universities) and guidelines
that help experimenters work in way that do not violate the ethics code as it instructs limitations
and concerns of the welfare of the individuals involved in the study.

This is important because if participants take away a negative perception and experience from their
participation it will negatively impact the whole psychological community which in turn will lose
credibility.

Ethical Guidelines Related To Human Particpants:

Informed Consent:

In order to reduce or negate the variable of demand characteristics, social desirability and validity of
the study it is important to hide the aim of the study. It is however important for them to know what
is in the study so they can provide their informed consent.

Ideally, informed consent should be obtained from participants before the study commences, not by
revealing the aim of the study but by providing them by enough sufficient information so that they
may decide whether or not to participate in the study. However, in the cases of naturalistic
observations and field experiments it is not possible for informed consent to be taken. This is where
‘presumptive consent’ comes in. This means the researchers might ask a group similar to the target
population (sharing similar traits) whether they would find the study acceptable or not so a relevant
result is acquired, thinking that the target population may also would have agreed.

Protection:

A study may have the potential to cause psychological discomfort, stress and harm to the
participants involved (for eg. Milgram et al.). In situations like those it is imperative that participants
should be protected, should not be put at higher risks and steps should thus be taken to eliminate
the risk all together. It is also a preventive measure that the study being conducted should be
stopped if unexpected risks arise.
Right To Withdraw:

Participants are also given the right to withdraw and it must be made clear to participants at the
start of the study. Although participants can be offered incentives to join a research, these cannot be
retracted away if they wish to leave for valid reason. Researchers cannot abuse their position of
authority, forcing a participant to stay if they don’t want to. Participants and Researchers should
both be aware of this.

Deception:

If possible, they (participants) should not be deliberately misinformed. When it is absolutely

essential to do so – they should be apologized and debriefed instantly. They should also be allowed
to remove their results if they wish to.

Confidentiality:

All the data that is collected and stored should comprise separately from the participants’ personal
information – age, name, gender, ethnicity, occupation. This information must not be shared with
any other 3rd party – this would be a breach of confidentiality. Ideally, to ensure confidentiality the
personal details of the participant should be destroyed so that any breach is impossible. If by any
chance, there is a need to initiate contact with the participant again or to pair up an individual’s
score in each condition in say, a repeated measures design – a serial number can be allotted the
participant(s) to identify them.

Privacy:

Research methods such as self-reports and observations which ask personal questions in a study
risks invading privacy. This means invading personal space or an emotional territory that the
individuals do not want to share. They can make this clear, setting boundaries with the researcher.
In the case of a questionnaire, participants should be allotted personal space. In observations,
people should only be observed/watched where the participants would usually expect to be
observed. Their information can be published only when the participant themselves grants them
permission to via informed consent or hyper-exceptional circumstances where the safety and lives of
the participant or others are at stake.

Debriefing:

Debriefing – it done by thanking participants who have been in a study, apologized to when deceived
and they are provided the chance to ask questions. They are also informed of the full aim of the
study and ensures that they do not want to withdraw their data. It is however, important to
understand how debriefing does not serve as a clause to designing an unethical procedure or
experiment, thus it is important for the researchers to consider minimizing ‘collateral damage’ and
distress to the participants, in any case.
Ethical Guidelines Related To The Use Of Animals

Animals are frequently used in psychological research for a number of different reasons as suggested
by psychologists – they are convenient models, a way to execute procedures that could not be
possible (because of ethical considerations) and because of redundancy. This is why research is
conducted on animals but their welfare needs safeguarding.

Animals are also often protected by law but these guidelines specifically consider the effects of
research in which animals may be caged/confined, harmed, in pain or stressed – this suffering
should be minimized. Veterinary help/advice should be sought in case where needed.

• Replacements:

Researchers should consider replacing actual animal experiments with alternatives such as videos
from previously conducted studies or computer simulations.

• Species And Strain:

The chosen species and strain should be the one that is least likely to go through distress or
pain. Other relevant and important factors such as if the animals were bred in captivity, if the
animals were participants in a study prior to the current one and the sentence period of the studies.

• Number Of Animals:

Only the minimum number of animals needed to produce reliable and valid findings should be
utilized. To minimize the number, pilot studies, reliable measures of the DV, good experimental
design and research method along with solid data analysis.

• Procedures: Distress And Pain

Research that may potentially cause disease, injury, physiological and psychological distress,
discomfort and death should be avoided at all costs. The experimental design should work on
reducing any possible pain of the animals, rather than worsen the situation.

Alternatively, naturally occurring instances may be used – such as during research, attention has to
be paid to the animals’ daily care and veterinary needs and any costs inflicted upon the animals
should be justified by an objective, scientific explanation that benefits the work.

• Housing:

Isolation and overcrowding can cause animals to become distressed as some of them have solitary,
territorial tendencies and habits. The caging condition should be considered according to the social
behaviour patterns of the animals. Overcrowding can cause aggression and consequently, distress.
Their food and water should be sufficient regarding their dietary habits. However, the artificial
environment only needs to recreate the aspects of the natural environment that are important to
welfare and survival. Eg. Warmth, space for exercise or somewhere to hide. Cage cleaning should
top priority.

• Reward And Deprivation – As Aversive Stimuli:

When initiating studies that concern the dietary habits of animals, it should be designed to satisfy
the needs. The usage of preferred food should be considered as an alternative to deprivation
and alternatives to aversive stimuli (Aversive stimuli by definition is an intentionally simulated
unpleasant event/occurrence that intends to decrease the plausible probability of a behaviour,
when it is presented as a consequence for example – a punishment.) Depravation should be used
where possible.

• Anaesthesia, Analgesia And Euthanasia:

Anaesthesia: It is a process of temporary loss of sensation, awareness and consciousness that is

induced through IV (Intravenous circulation). This is usually to induce a paralysis (for muscle
relaxation).

Analgesia: Medication used to relieve pain, inflammation and etc.

Euthanasia: It is also known as mercy killing. It is the process of intentionally killing, relieving the
subject from the pain and suffering, withholding artificial-life support and treatments.
Evaluating Research: Methodological Issues

Reliability:

Whenever research is conducted data is inherently obtained. Researchers must attempt to make
sure that the way in which these results are collected is the same every time. When differences in
findings occur upon times of repeating the research, such inconsistencies are deemed problems in
reliability.

The reliability of the measures used to collect data depends on the ‘tool’ used. A researcher
collecting reaction times or pulse rates as data will probably have reliability as the machines used
are likely to produce very consistent measures of time or rates.

The way to check reliability is to use the test-retest procedure. This involves using a measure once,
and then using it again in the same situation. If the reliability is high, the same results will be
witnessed and collected on both occasions meaning there will be a high correlation between the two
score sets.

Example:

Consider an experiment on food preferences based on different cuisines such as ‘Chinese’ and
‘Mexican’ in which the researcher is not sure if the questionnaire is a reliable measure of
‘preference’. They use a group of participants and give them the questionnaire on two separate
occasions. All the participants would have to be tested at the same time of day (At the time of any
Breakfast, Luch or Dinner) and same week of the day so that their hunger levels and consequently
‘food preferences’ would be the same. If the ‘food preference’ scale was reliable, this test-retest
procedure would produce a high correlation between the scores on the first and second
tasting/testings. If the reliability was low, the test would have had to be redesigned.

There is also the problem in reliability that there are subjective interpretations of data. For instance,
a researcher who is using a questionnaire or interview with open questions may come to find that
the same answers could be interpreted in different ways, producing low reliability. If these
differences arose between different researchers, this would come to be called an inter-rater
reliability problem. This however, can be solved by operationalizing.

Similarly, in an observation researcher gave different interpretations of the same actions, this would
be low inter-observer reliability. If the reliability was low, the researchers in either case would need
to discuss why the differences arose and find ways to make their interpretations or observations
more alike. This can be done by agreeing on operational definitions of the variables being measured
and by looking at examples together. These steps would help to make the researches indefinitely
more objective.
To minimize differences, in the way research is conducted that could effectively reduce reliability,
standardization can be used, that is if the procedure is kept the same. This could be done by
including instructions, materials and apparatus, although it is important to note that there would be
no reason to change many of these. The important aspects of standardization are those factors
which might differ, such as experimenter’s manner towards participants in different levels of the IV,
an interviewer’s body language, verbal mannerisms or an observer’s success at covering their
presence.

Validity:

Many factors affect validity (and this includes reliability too because a test or task cannot measure
what it actually intends to unless the methods are consistent. Objectivity also affects validity in the
sense that if a researcher is subjective in their handling and specifically interpretation of data, their
findings will not properly reflect the intended measure.

There are different types of validity that are important – this includes face validity (which is
essentially the measure of the procedure and how it appears) A test or task must seem to test what
it is actually supposed to. Consider a test of helping behaviour that involved offering to assist people
who were stuck in a bath tub full of spiders or lizards.

It might not be a valid test of helping because people who were frightened of spiders or lizards
would not help, even though they might otherwise be of altruistic nature (selflessly helping). This
would be deemed a lack of face validity.

If participants start to think that they understand the aim of the study, their behaviour patterns and
characteristics are very likely to be affected by what we call social desirability and demand
characteristics – this obviously lowers validity. When designing a study, the researcher should aim
to minimize demand characteristics that is not make apparent or indicative to the participants how
they are expected to behave.

For Example:

In the study conducted by Laney et al. Which was based on ‘False Memories’ the researcher needed
to hide the aim of the study which he/she did by using several mock/filler questionnaires alongside
actual ones (‘Food History Inventory’ and ‘Restaurant Questionnaire’) that as the ‘Food Preference
Questionnaire’, ‘Food Cost Questionnaire’ and ‘Memory or Belief Questionnaire’.

They might try to remember a certain piece of information really well, or might not report it at all if
that is what they think the researcher expects.
Another problem of validity is whether if the research’s findings are too specific to that own study,
not being able to be apply it to other situations. This lacks the general reach it was supposed to have
– this means there is a lack of ecological validity. This type of validity explores if findings from the
laboratory have a real-life application into the ‘real world’.

For Example:

An experiment conducted on anxiety and panic attacks inside a laboratory and its findings may differ
from that of real-life anxiety and panic attack experiences. However, it is also worth mentioning how
a test of anxiety and panic attacks conducted at home may not accurately reflect the situational
reality of people who have these experiences at work or even during healthcare procedures. If so,
the finding of this test may not generalize beyond the situation tested.

The task itself matters too. If in a task, participants are asked to do tasks that are similar to the ones
in real-life contexts then it has mundane realism (the degree of it being similar to events in real-life
contexts). This is significant for a study to have as it would naturally have higher ecological validity if
the tasks are realistic. For instance, in an experiment on emotions responses to dangerous animals
such as Bears, Insects, Bats or Tigers can be used.

As it is highly likely that a small number of people would have seen bears, tigers, a few more would
have seen a bat but insects are more likely to have been seen by everybody in the participant sample
– having higher mundane realism and thus higher ecological validity. This is a variant of; external
validity. External Validity is basically referring to whether or not the findings of the study can be
generalized beyond the present study.

Generalizability:

As it is apparent, Ecological Validity contributes to the generalisability of the results. Another factor
which affects the ability to generalize is the participants of the sample.

If the sample is very small, or does not contain a wide range of the different kinds of people in the
population (such as gender, age, ethnicity, etc) it is actually unlikely to be representative.

Restricted samples like the one mentioned are more likely to occur when the sampling methods of
either opportunity or volunteer sampling is used, rather than if random sampling is used.

Important Things To Remember About Research Thodology And Processes:

• Are measures reliable?

• Are the tools and equipment being used collecting consistent results?

• Are the researchers using those in ways that are consistent?

• Is the interpretation of data objective?

• Is the study valid? Does it represent what the aim intends to find out?

• Take into account the position of reliability and generalizability when it comes to validity.

• Are there any variables that may affect results? Such as Social Desirability, Demand
Characteristics, Familiarity Bias, Researcher Bias, etc?

• To improve the study, light of focus needs to be on: Method, Design, Procedure and Sampling
Tool.