Wednesday, 9 December 2015

Model answers for Research Methods Paper

RESEARCH METHODS SECTION A MODEL ANSWER


2.  Describe the method you would use to conduct your practical project. 13 marks are awarded for replicability and appropriateness and 6 for the quality of the design and its feasibility.

An experiment on the effect of environment on memory:

SAMPLE:

WHERE: On Monday morning, I will go into the common room at Ousedale School, a State Sixth form in Milton Keynes, in order to select my sample of 30 6th form students. WHEN: I will go in at 11.30am (break time) on the 26/04/15

HOW: and using an opportunity sample, I approach the first 30 people and hand out my briefing sheet to them. HOW I WILL DIRECT MY SAMPLE TO THE EXPERIMENT: My brief sheet will explain that the experiment will be investigating the best way to learn and remember objects. It will explain that the experiment will take place on the 30/04/15 at 9am in the classroom C6.  

ALLOCATION TO GROUPS:

WHAT EXPERIMENTTAL DESIGN: I will use an independent measures design.
HOW: I will randomly allocate the participants into the 2 conditions by putting all their names into a hat. The first 15 that I pick out will go into condition 1 (complete memory task inside), the second lot of 15 participants left will go into condition 2 (complete memory task outside).

MEASURE & CONDITIONS:

HOW: The first 15 will come into a classroom in the main building at WHEN: 9am and sitting spaced apart (so they can’t copy). WHAT: They will be then told to turn over a piece of paper in front of them and memorise as many of the 20 words to do with food ( like a shopping list: cereal, bread. milk) as they can in 60 seconds. They will then be given 2 minutes to write down as many as they can remember. The 20 words will be printed in Times New Roman font in size 14 and will be equally spaced. (This is to standardise the procedure.)
WHEN: Later on at 12pm I will take the next group of 15 participants outside into the school courtyard at Ousedale school. I will sit them spaced apart at the picnic tables and they will be told they have one min to memorise the set of 20 words ( same as before) related to food, and then have another 2 minutes to write down on a separate piece of paper their answers.
WHERE YOU WERE: I will be standing at the front of the students for both conditions.

ETHICS:
In order to protect their confidentiality they will be given stickers with numbers 1-30 on. All the papers will be numbered as well.

TIMINGS & SCORINGS:

The time up (after the 2 minutes in each condition) will be signalled with a whistle and they will be asked to put their pens down. The participants will be scored out of 20, e.g. how may words that they were able to note down.


 Explain one weakness of conducting this practical project as a correlation [3]

The main weakness is that we are not manipulating the Independent variable and therefore we cannot infer cause and effect. We can merely state that noise may have an effect on performance levels but we have not controlled the extraneous variables so we cannot be sure.

How would you address any one ethical issue in the conduct of this project? [3]

One ethical issue would be anonymity and confidentiality. It is essential that participants are known as numbers (numbered 1-30) so that when analysing the data we do not know whose data belongs to which person. Some people might be embarrassed and it could cause them harm if they knew we knew their score. I would label each participant from number one to thirty.

                                                                                                                  
 7.  Outline one other way your research question could be investigated [3]

This research question could be investigated with an independent measures design. The participants would be randomly allocated to condition A or B. Condition A they would do the task with noise and condition B would not be subject to the noise. The IV would be levels of noise and the DV would be performance on the task.


  

RESEARCH METHODS SECTION B MODEL ANSWER

a)      Using your knowledge of psychology, briefly outline what is meant by ecological validity. [4]
Using the structure – 3 SENTENCES EXPLAINING THE TERM

1.      The term validity refers to the idea that you are measuring what you intend to measure.

2.      Ecological Validity is the degree to which the behaviours observed and recorded in a study reflect the behaviours that actually occur in natural settings.

3.      In addition, ecological validity is associated with "generalizability". Essentially this is the extent to which findings (from a study) can be generalized (or extended) to the "real world".  

 

b)      Describe examples of high ecological validity from any two pieces of psychological research. [8]

Using the structure – AIM-SAMPLE- PROCEDURE-RESULTS-CONCLUSIONS-LINK YOUR STUDY BACK TO THE QUESTION X 2

AIM: Piliavin et al.’s study on helping behaviour is a field experiment that has high ecological validity which aimed to test the theory of diffusion of responsibility. SAMPLE: There were approximately 4000 passengers that used the subway. PROCEDURE: In the study two actors played either a drunk or a person with a cane who would fall down in a subway train whilst it was travelling between stops.  Two participant observers would then note down who helped the victim and how long it took as well as various other details about the passengers on the train.  RESULTS: They found that the quickest behaviours came from larger groups, thus disproving the diffusion of responsibility theory. CONCLUSION: Piliavin concluded that people use a cost-reward model to weigh up the benefits and risks when helping people. LINK: Because this was an undisclosed observation the participants had no idea they were taking part in an experiment and therefore their behaviour was reflective of real life.

AIM: Cowpe’s 1989 study in to chip-pan fire prevention and aimed to find out whether educational campaigns could help to prevent chip-pan fires.  SAMPLE: TV viewers of two areas in the UK. PROCEDURE: Two 60 second commercials were shown in 10 TV areas in the UK, one aimed at prevention and one at coping safely with a chip-pan fire.  Then number of reported chip pan fires was then analysed for each area.  RESULTS: They found that there was between a 7% (Central TV) and 25% (Granada) net decline in fires, and the largest decrease was during the campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Educational advertisements are effective but this effectiveness can be reduced if people see the advertisement too much. LINK: The study was high in ecological validity as it was a natural experiment and it demonstrated behaviour in the real world so has high ecological validity.



c)       Discuss the strengths and limitations of conducting psychological research where the ecological validity is low.  Use examples of psychological research to support your answer. [12]
Using the structure PEEC X 4 – POINT-EXPLAIN-EVIDENCE-CHALLENGE
POINT: Many studies that lack ecological validity take place in the laboratory and as a consequence they have high levels of control.  EXPLAIN: An advantage of this control is that researchers are able to infer cause and effect because there are few extraneous variables that could affect the results and this in turn increases the reliability and replicability of the results.  EVIDENCE: For example in Baron-Cohen’s eyes task the pictures that participants saw were all black and white, the same size and the same portion of the face, therefore we can conclude that it was the Autism that caused participants to fail the eyes task rather than the way the picture was presented.  This study can be easily repeated and it is likely if the all controls are kept the same we would find similar results. CHALLENGE: However this control means that we cannot generalise findings to real life situations: in real life people would judge emotion in eyes with more contextual information such as movement and tone of voice.

POINT: Studies that are low in ecological validity also often use more objective measures EXPLAIN: and as such may again be more reliable.  EVIDENCE: In Dement and Kleitman’s study on sleep they used and EEG to measure brain waves during sleep which is a reliable measure for sleep patterns, as the measure will be consistent across participants.  CHALLENGE: However, a problem for this type of data is that it is quantitative and whilst this is easy to analyse and compare across participants it does not give the bigger picture so, for example, we cannot infer from an EEG what a person is dreaming about.  Again though we do not know if being wired up to an EEG machine will affect sleep patterns and so we cannot generalise findings to real life.

POINT: A limitation of studies low in ecological validity is often that they are reductionist, EXPLAIN: because they use methods with high control they look at only one factor that may be causing behaviour and ignore other equally important factors.  EVIDENCE: For example Geer and Maisel look at the effect of perceived control on reducing stress response, this assumes that cognitive processes can have an effect on the physiological stress response but it ignores the social aspects of stress response and individual differences in response to stress. CHALLENGE: However, even though it lacks ecological validity, it does allow psychologists to develop further research in understanding how stress can be reduced.

POINT: A final limitation is that research low in ecological validity is arguably less useful EXPLAIN: as it has fewer real life applications.  EVIDENCE: For example, Loftus and Palmer’s study into the reliability of eyewitness testimony used video footage, we may find that if people view a real life event they are less susceptible to post-event information confounding their memory, therefore the study is of little interest to the courts when calling eyewitness evidence into question. CHALLENGE: Nonetheless, data collected in labs which are low in ecological validity can arguably still have useful applications to real life. For example the research from Loftus can now be taken into consideration when interviewing eye witnesses.

d)      Compare the ecological validity of laboratory experiments with ecological validity of field experiments. [8]
Using the structure PEE – SIMILARITY & PEE – DIFFERENCE – POINT-EVIDENCE-EVIDENCE

POINT/DIFFERENCE: Laboratory experiments are usually low in ecological validity because they take place in the in artificial laboratory conditions whereas field experiments are high on ecological validity as they take place in natural conditions. EVIDENCE: For example in Castellow’s study on the effect of attractiveness by looking at photos and reading case files on jury decision making. Participants may have guessed the nature of the study and this influenced them to reach a particular verdict. EVIDENCE: Whereas Piliavin was a field experiment carried out on a real subway. The researchers were able to see the effect on helping behaviours without the influence of demand characteristics, therefore increasing the validity.      

POINT/SIMILARITY: Laboratory experiments and field experiments both try to infer cause and effect by having an independent variable and a dependent variable. EVIDENCE: Johansson’s study in to stress in the work place, the independent variable was the type of worker e.g. high stress and low stress and the dependent variables were adrenaline in urine levels (high levels indicating stress) and self-reports on feelings of stress. EVIDENCE: Similarly a laboratory experiment such as Bandura also had an IV of aggressive model, non-aggressive model and control group and the DV of how much the aggression was imitated, verbal aggression and observational data of the children.                                                                                                        

Discuss the features of the cognitive approach that support the view that psychology is a science [8]

Using the structure of PEEC – WITH A FOR ARGUMENT & AN AGAINST ARGUMENT

FOR ARGUMENT: In order to understand complex mental processes the cognitive approach will tend to use lab experiments in order to establish cause and effect between cognitions and behaviour. Highly controlled environments are needed in order to study a theory that is subjective like the cognitive approach. This therefore supports the view that psychology is a science.
AGAINST ARGUMENT: However, cognitions are not actually observable and therefore not empirical; therefore the cognitive approach may not have a scientific view as it is based on subjective interpretation.

FOR ARGUMENT: On the other, hand the cognitive approach is a theory and generates hypotheses about how cognition effects behaviour, which are then tested empirically in order to test and refine them, this therefore shows how the cognitive approach views psychology as a science.

AGAINST ARGUMENT: However, the cognitive approach focuses on people. People can’t be investigated in the same way as chemistry or physics because there are many extraneous variables and interactions that would effect findings. This would suggest that cognitive psychology is not a science as it only finds probabilities and not certainties.  

AS Studies that you need for the Research Methods paper

Thigpen and Cleckley can be used as part of the Psychodynamic approach and Individual Differences. 

Thigpen and Cleckley:

Aim:
The aim of this article was to provide an account of the psychotherapeutic treatment of a 25-year-old woman who was referred to Thigpen and Cleckley because of 'severe and blinding headaches'.

Procedure/Method
The psychiatrists used a case study method. This consisted of interviews with the patient and her family, hypnosis, observation, EEG tests and a number of psychometric and projective tests including, memory tests, ink blot tests and intelligence tests.

Findings/Results
During interviews several emotional difficulties were revealed. 
Several days after a visit to the therapists, a letter from Eve White appeared at the therapists' office. The letter concerned her therapy and was written in her usual handwriting, but at the bottom of the page there was a paragraph that looked like a child had written it.

On her next visit Eve White denied sending the letter, though she recalled having begun one, which she never finished and thought she had destroyed. 
During a conversation Eve White, as if in pain suddenly put both hands to her head. After a tense moment of silence her hands dropped, and the therapist observed a quick, reckless smile? and in a bright voice she said: 'Hi there, Doc'. She revealed that she was Eve Black.
Over the next 14 months, during a series of interviews totalling approximately 100 hours.
The therapists found that although Eve Black could sometimes 'pop out' unexpectedly, she could only be 'called out' by the therapists when Eve White was under hypnosis. After more sessions they found that hypnosis was no longer needed for obtaining the changes. 
The therapists believed that Eve Black had enjoyed an independent life since Eve's early childhood and when she was 'out' Eve White was not aware of what was happening. In contrast, when Eve Black was not out she was aware of what was happening.
Eve Black told the therapists about a number of incidents in childhood where she engaged in acts of mischief or disobedience, which Eve White was unaware of and was punished for. Some of these incidents were later backed up in interviews with her parents and her husband.
Eve Black denied marriage to the man, who she despised, and denied any relationship to Eve White's daughter except that of an unconcerned bystander. 
Psychometric (i.e. IQ and memory tests) and Projective tests (i.e. Rorschach and drawings of human figures) were also used:
IQ test results: Eve White obtained an IQ of 110 and Eve Black 104.
Memory Test results: Eve White had a superior memory function than Eve Black
Rorschach test (ink blot test) and drawings of human figures results:
The profile of Eve Black was far healthier than Eve White. Eve Black though regressive.
Eve White was repressive showing obsessive-compulsive traits, rigidity and an inability to deal with her hostility.
After Jane appeared the three personalities were given electroencephalogram tests (EEG). It was possible to make a clear distinction between the readings of Eve Black and the other two personalities. Although it was not possible make a clear distinction between Eve White and Jane's EEG.
It was decided that Jane was the person most likely to bring a solution to the troubled mind, and that her growing dominance over the other personalities to be an appropriate resolution. 
Explanation
Thigpen and Cleckley were convinced that they had witnessed an example of multiple personality. Although Thigpen and Cleckley do not point to the cause of MPD, the received wisdom is that MPD is usually a response to child abuse - a way for the individual to protect him or herself.

Freud can be used as part of the Psychodynamic approach Developmental approach and Individual Differences. 

Freud: The case of Little Hans 
Aim
The aim of the study was to report the findings of the treatment of a five-year-old boy for his phobia of horses.

Procedure/Method
Freud used a case study method to investigate Little Hans phobia. However the case study was actually carried out by the boy's father who was a friend and supporter of Freud. Freud probably only met the boy once. The father reported to Freud via letters and Freud gave directions as how to deal with the situation based on his interpretations of the father's reports.The first reports of Hans are when he was 3 years old.

Findings/Results
The first reports of Hans are when he was 3 years old when he developed an active interest in his 'widdler' (penis), and also those of other people. For example on one occasion he asked 'Mummy, have you got a widdler too'?
When he was about three years and six months old his mother told him not to touch his widdler or else she would call the doctor to come and cut it off. 
Around the same time, Hans' mother gave birth to his sister Hanna, and Hans expressed jealousy towards her though this disappeared after a few months.
When Hans was almost 5, Hans' father wrote to Freud explaining his concerns about Hans. He described the main problem as follows: 'He is afraid a horse will bite him in the street'
Hans' anxieties and phobia continued and he was afraid to go out of the house because of his phobia of horses. Hans told his father of a dream/fantasy which his father summarised as follows: 'In the night there was a big giraffe in the room and a crumpled one: and the big one called out because I took the crumpled one away from it. Then it stopped calling out: and I sat down on top of the crumpled one?' 
Freud and the father interpreted the dream/fantasy as being a reworking of the morning exchanges in the parental bed. Hans enjoyed getting into his parents bed in a morning but his father often objected (the big giraffe calling out because he had taken the crumpled giraffe - mother - away). Both Freud and the father believed that the long neck of the giraffe was a symbol for the large adult penis.
When Hans was taken to see Freud, he was asked about the horses he had a phobia of. Hans noted that he didn't like horses with black bits around the mouth. Freud believed that the horse was a symbol for his father, and the black bits were a moustache. After the interview, the father recorded an exchange with Hans where the boy said 'Daddy don't trot away from me!'. This was due to Hans having castration anxiety. 
Hans' anxiety began to diffuse as he found a resolution. Firstly, Hans had described a fantasy where he was married to his mother and was playing with his own children. In this fantasy he had promoted his father to the role of grandfather. In the second fantasy, he described how a plumber came and first removed his bottom and widdler and then gave him another one of each, but larger.
At age 19 the not so Little Hans appeared at Freud?s consulting room having read his case history. Hans could not remember the discussions with his father. therefore supporting his theory of the unconscious mind. 

Explanation
In particular, the case study provided support for his theory of Oedipus Complex in which the young boy develops an intense sexual love for his mother and because of this, he sees his father as a rival and wants to get rid of him.
According to Freud the cause of Little Hans' phobia was related to his Oedipus complex. Little Hans was afraid of horses because the horse was a symbol for his father. He was afraid his father knew of his urges for his mother and would castrate him. 
He pointed out that unlike most other children of the time, Hans was able to communicate fears and wishes that many children do not have the opportunity to express. He argued that as a result Hans had been able to resolve conflicts and anxieties. This supports Freud's talking therapies. 

Bandura can be used as part of the Developmental approach and as part of upbringing Forensic

Bandura and the Bobo doll:


Aim
The aim of Bandura's study was to demonstrate that if children were passive witnesses to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour when given the opportunity.

Procedure/ Method
Bandura, Ross and Ross tested 36 boys and 36 girls aged between 37 to 69 months.
The method was a laboratory experiment. The design of the experiment has three major conditions; the control group, the group exposed to the aggressive model, and the group exposed to the passive model.
Each experimental group, consisted of 24 children and were divided into 4 groups of 6.
This complicated design therefore has three independent variables. The condition the children were exposed to, the sex of the role model and the sex of the child.
The researchers attempted to reduce the problem of the participant extraneous variable of aggression by pre-testing the children for how aggressive they were. They did this by observing the children in the nursery and judged their aggressive behaviour on four 5-point rating scales. The experiment is therefore an example of a matched pairs design.
All of the children were tested individually
In stage one of the experiment children were brought to the experimental room by the experimenter, and the model was invited to come in and join in the game. One corner had a small table and chair, potato prints and picture stickers. After settling the child in its corner the adult model was escorted to the opposite corner of the room where there was a small table, chair, tinker-toy set, a mallet and a five foot inflatable Bobo doll. After the model was seated the experimenter left the experimental room.
In the non-aggressive condition, the model ignored Bobo and assembled the tinker-toys in a quiet, gentle manner.
In the aggressive condition the model began by assembling the tinker-toys, but after one minute turned to Bobo and was aggressive to the doll.
An example of physical aggression was "raised the Bobo doll and hit it on the head with a mallet",
An example of verbal aggression was, "Pow!" and "Sock him in the nose".
After ten minutes the experimenter entered and took the child to a new room which the child was told was another games room.
In stage two the child was subjected to 'mild aggression arousal'. The child was taken to a room with relatively attractive toys. As soon as the child started to play with the toys the experimenter told the child that these were the experimenter's very best toys and she had decided to reserve them for the other children.
Then the child was taken to the next room for stage three of the study where the child was told it could play with any of the toys in there with the experimenter.
In this room there was a variety of both non-aggressive (crayons, tea set) and aggressive toys (mallet, dart gun and Bobo doll). The child was kept in this room for 20 minutes during which time their behaviour was observed by judges through a one-way mirror. Observations were made at 5-second intervals.
Results/Findings
The main findings were.
1. The children in the aggressive model condition made more aggressive responses than the children in the non-aggressive model condition
2. Boys made more aggressive responses than girls;
3. The boys in the aggressive model conditions showed more aggressive responses if the model was male than if the model was female;
4. The girls in the aggressive model conditions also showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male but more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female.

Explanation for Findings
The findings support Bandura's Social Learning Theory. That is, children learn social behaviour such as aggression through the process of observation learning - through watching the behaviour of another person.
Central to Social Learning Theory is the identification of which types of models are more likely to be imitated.
Appropriateness of the model.
In the study it was found that aggressive male models were more likely to be imitated than aggressive female models. One probable reason for this is to do with sex roles: perhaps it is more acceptable in Western culture for men to be aggressive than women.