G542

Your guide to Section B in the exam..

This section has questions which focus on methodology and/or issues.

Methods

• Experimental (laboratory and field) Jan 09

• Case study June 10

• Self-report ??

• Observation Jan 12

• Reliability ??

• Validity ??

Issues

• Ethics June 09

• Ecological validity ??

• Longitudinal ??

• Snapshot Jan 11

• Qualitative data June 11

• Quantitative data Jan 10

There will be a choice of 3 studies from which you need to choose ONE.

There will always be SIX parts to the question which will always be progressive in the demands

with each part being compulsory.

Total for Section = 36 though allocation of marks within the section may vary.

All parts (a-f) should be answered in relation to the study selected from the 3 offered.

Therefore if, for example, a candidate is asked to give advantages and disadvantages of

observation, any advantage and disadvantage can be identified but should be supported by

evidence from the selected study.

What has come up already?

Worth thinking about what

could come up in this exam…

This could be a good bet!! Or

reliability or validity – none

of these have come up yet.

Section B: Top tips

REMEMBER: Context matters!!

The key to achieving a high mark in section B is to contextualize your answer using

evidence from the core study you have chosen.

This hasn‟t got it…

A snapshot study is a study where participants from different groups are studied simultaneously, often only once, and their behaviour is compared.

This has it… A snapshot study is a design where participants from different groups are studied simultaneously, often only once, and their behaviour is compared. Loftus & Palmer studied students who were split into different experimental groups and they tested them only once with different verbs to see the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. The performance of each group was then compared.

Read every answer and think… ‘what study is it about?’

Check, check and check again that you have linked your answer to your chosen

core study.

Read all the questions in section B before you get started particularly (e) and (f).

Sometimes changes and implications are asked separately and sometimes as one

question. Check before you get started.

Have you got it? “What study is it

about?”

Explain why your chosen study can be considered a snapshot study. (4)

Let’s have a look at a Section B question from June 2011… Choose one of the core studies below and answer parts (a) – (f) on your chosen study:

• Rosenhan: ‘On being sane in insane places’ • Reicher and Haslam : ‘BBC prison study’ • Dement and Kleitman: ‘sleep and dreaming’

(a) Briefly outline how qualitative data was gathered in your chosen study. (2)

(b) Describe two examples of qualitative data recorded in your chosen study. (4)

(c) With reference to your chosen study, suggest one strength and one weakness of

qualitative data.

(d) Describe how your chosen study was conducted. (8)

(e) Suggest how your chosen study could be improved. (8)

(f) Outline the implications of the improvements suggested for your chosen study. (8)

A candidates answer…

REICHER & HASLAM MARK?

16(a) In Reicher and Haslam‟s study, qualitative data was collected through observations using video recordings and also standardised self-reports as questionnaires, but mainly through observation.

16(b) Reicher and Haslam recorded the behaviour of the guards and prisoners in their setting using video recordings throughout the whole study. For example, they recorded a group of three prisoners planning to rebel against the guards. Another example of qualitative data recorded was from the questionnaires that were carried out by the participants on more than one occasion to gather qualitative data about how they were feeling.

16(c) One strength of qualitative data is that it provides rich data for researchers to analyse. For example, in the study by Reicher and Haslam, they had lots of rich data from the hours of video recordings of what went on in the mock prison. However a weakness of qualitative data could be that it cannot be quantified and so one cannot make comparisons. For example, Reicher and Haslam may have wished to compare their results to the Stanford prison experiment as it was based on that but they could not do this.

16(d) Reicher and Haslam got their male sample through advertising in a newspaper. The applicants then went through tests to check they were applicable mentally and physically. Then the study began and all participants arrived separately, these were the prisoners. The guards had previously arrived the day before and been briefed on how to treat the prisoners. The guards were given uniforms to assert authority on them and they already in the setting and in their roles when the prisoners arrived. The prisoners were also given a uniform but they were all identical and had a number, not a name on, to provide deinvidualisation. They were then left to live in the prison for two weeks and were observed through video recordings the whole time. Daily questionnaires were carried out and saliva swab tests to inform the researchers of the feelings, thoughts and health of their participants. It was a laboratory experiment where the a BBC studio had been designed to look like a prison.

16(e) Reicher and Haslam was a very ethical study, however it had low ecological validity because the setting was artificial and it was actually a laboratory experiment. This study could be improved by changing the location of the study. For example, part of a prison or an old prison could be where the study takes place to reduce demand characteristics of the participants because the setting would be less artificial. Another improvement that could be made is to repeat the experiment with another group of people twice more, with a mixed gender group too. This could make the sample larger and therefore more representative of the rest of the population. Also a mixed gender group could develop the study to see what differences gender makes in socialising and group membership. These improvements would mainly reduce demand characteristics and increase the reliability and validity of the data collected. A final improvement could be to not televise the data because then participants may behave more naturally and again it may provide more valid findings and reduce demand characteristics.

16(f) Changing the location to a real prison may raise ethical issues, such as protection from harm, especially if it was a running prison with real criminals present. Associating innocent people with criminals whilst they are in prison could be very dangerous and perhaps not worth reducing demand characteristics for. Repeating the experiment with two more groups of participants would take time to recruit and test the participants again and cost a lot of money if it was all being recorded and televised again. A mixed gender group may raise ethical issues because some may say there is a higher risk of harm to the women involved and it would take longer to analyse the results. However it would develop the research in a positive way, but could be argued that it would not be valid because it would not be measuring what Reicher and Haslam set out to measure. Also, not televising the experiment may make it more difficult to find the sample because many applicants may have applied because the idea of being on television appealed to them. However this means the participants who did apply would provide Reicher and Haslam with more valid data because the people involved will be less likely to respond to demand characteristics.

Mark Scheme

(a) No marks for referring to ‘interview’ in Reicher & Haslam.

Reicher and Haslam: Qualitative data was gathered through observations made by the researchers via the audio and video recordings made by the BBC which allowed them to gather information both about the guards‟ and prisoners‟ thoughts, feelings and behaviours.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.

1 mark – Partial or vague answer eg Reicher and Haslam: observed participants, no link to the chosen study eg qualitative data was gathered through observations.

2 marks – The outline of how qualitative data was gathered is accurate and clearly related

to the chosen study, as outlined above.

(b) This answer requires examples of qualitative data taken from the original study. - That the guards failed to identify with each other as a group and to cohere collectively. - That after the promotion on day 3 the prisoners increasingly identified as a group and worked collectively to challenge the guards.

- That once participants had decided to work as a self-governing „commune‟ they were unable to deal with internal dissent and lost confidence in the communal system.

- That before promotion two prisoners worked conscientiously to improve their position by displaying behaviour required to become a guard.

- That several guards were wary of assuming and exerting their authority.

- Other appropriate answer, eg extra food was given to the prisoners.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.

1 mark – Partial or vague answer eg Reicher and Haslam: guards didn‟t form a group, prisoners became a group

2 marks – A clear description of an example of qualitative data drawn explicitly from the chosen study, as outlined above (2 + 2)

(c) If there is no obvious generic strength/weakness the ceiling is 2 marks. Strength: Most likely answers should have a generic introduction and then include details specific to the chosen study eg: - Generic strength: qualitative data allows the researcher to gather rich, in-depth detail about an individual or small, organised group. - Then linked to chosen study: Reicher and Haslam: were able to found out that one prisoner said “I‟d like to be a guard because they get all the luxuries and we are not.”

- Other appropriate generic strength supported by relevant example from chosen study.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.

1 mark – Peripherally relevant strength is identified, not linked to the chosen study and with little or no elaboration eg gives great understanding/insight of how and why people behave the way they do.

2 marks – An appropriate strength is explained but is basic and lacks detail. A vague/weak link is made to the chosen study showing some understanding,

3 marks – An appropriate strength is explained and is accurate and elaborated. There is a clear, developed link eg example/evidence to the chosen study showing good understanding, as outlined above.

Weakness: Most likely answers should have a generic introduction and then include details specific to the chosen study eg:

- Generic weakness: qualitative data is frequently unique making it difficult to analyse.

- Then linked to chosen study: Reicher and Haslam: found that some of the guards identified with the high-status and positive values associated with the role within a prison whereas several were wary of assuming and exerting their authority. - Other appropriate generic weakness supported by relevant example from chosen study.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.

1 mark – Peripherally relevant weakness is identified, not linked to chosen study and with little or no elaboration eg participant variables may influence results rather the independent variable.

2 marks – An appropriate weakness is explained but is basic and lacks detail. A vague/weak link is made to the chosen study showing some understanding.

3 marks – An appropriate weakness is explained and is accurate and elaborated. There is a clear, developed link to the chosen study showing good understanding, as outlined above. (3 + 3)

(d) Likely answers may cover the following content:

Reicher and Haslam: worked with the BBC who built a simulated prison environment at Elstree Studios in London, filmed and broadcast the study. Over 8 days Reicher and Haslam examined the behaviour of 15 men who were sought through national newspapers and leaflets. The initial pool of 332 applicants was reduced to 27 through screening using psychometric tests, assessments by clinical psychologists, and medical and character references. The final 15 were chosen to ensure a diversity of age, social class and ethnic origin. They were then divided into 5 groups of 3 people, matched on personality variables. From each group of 3, one individual was randomly selected to be a guard and the other 2 prisoners, one of whom was not involved at the beginning of the study. The 5 guards were invited to a hotel the evening before the study began. They were shown the prison timetable and were told their responsibility was to ensure the prison ran as smoothly as possible, and that the prisoners performed all their tasks. They were then asked to draw up a series of prison rules and punishments. No other guidance was given except that they had to abide by the predetermined ethical rules and that no physical violence could be used. On the morning of the study they were taken in a blacked-out van to the prison and then briefed on the prison layout and the resources available to them. They then changed into swell-made „guards‟ uniforms. The 9 prisoners then arrived one at a time and on arrival had their hair shaved off. They were given no information apart from the prison rules, a list of prisoner rights and a prisoner‟s uniform. They were assigned 3 to a cell after which an announcement was made which introduced the permeability intervention. This was created by telling the prisoners that the

guards had been selected because of certain personality characteristics but that if they showed similar traits they might be promoted to guards. One prisoner was promoted but after that they were told no more promotions were possible. After 3 days participants were told there were no actual differences between guards and prisoners but it would be impractical to re-assign participants. The groups were therefore not legitimate. On day 4, prisoner 10 was introduced to provide cognitive alternatives. Being a trade union official it was thought he might provide the skills to negotiate and organise collectivist action. By Day 8 an authoritarian system of inequality was about to be initiated but because of ethical constraints this could not be imposed so the study was stopped.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.

1-3 marks – Description of how the chosen study was conducted is very basic and lacks detail and accuracy (eg two or three general statements are identified). Some understanding may be evident. Expression is generally poor with few, if any, psychological terms and few, if any, links to the chosen study.

4-6 marks – Description of how the study was conducted is accurate though there will be some omissions. Fine details are occasionally present and understanding is evident. Expression and use of psychological terminology is reasonable and there are some clear, appropriate links to the chosen study.

7-8 marks – Description of how the chosen study was conducted is accurate and detailed with few or no omissions. The detail is appropriate to the level and time allowed. Understanding, expression and use of psychological terminology are very good. There are many, clear and appropriate links to the chosen study.

(e) This question part requires candidates to describe what they would improve and how they would do it. Suggestions here may not be practical or ethical but they should still receive credit. Implications mentioned in this question part do not gain credit. EACH ISSUE RAISED, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS ONE CHANGE EG REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY ETHICAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUGGESTED THIS COULD ONLY COUNT AS 1 CHANGE SO CANNOT GAIN MORE THAN 6 MARKS WITHOUT ANOTHER ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED EG IMPROVEMENT TO METHODOLOGY

Answers are likely to refer to ways of: - Improving ecological validity. - Reducing the chance that demand characteristics/social desirability will influence results. - Making the study longitudinal rather than snapshot - Improving any ethical issues. - Other appropriate suggestions should be considered and accepted.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.

1-3 marks – Some improvements are suggested which are very basic and lack detail (one or two general statements are identified eg do the study in a natural environment). There are few, if any, suggestions as to how the improvements could be implemented. Some understanding may be evident. The answer is unstructured, muddled, and grammatical structure is poor. There are few, if any, links to the chosen study. The answer is very list-like.

NB: A maximum of 3 marks can be gained if the answer is not linked to the chosen study.

4-6 marks – Description of one or more appropriate changes is accurate. Detail is good and basic suggestions are made as to how the improvements could be implemented. Understanding is evident. Expression and use of psychological terminology is reasonable. The answer has some structure and organisation, is mostly grammatically correct and has few spelling errors. There are some clear, appropriate links to the chosen study.

7-8 marks – Description of at least two appropriate changes is accurate and clear links to

the chosen study are evident throughout. Sound suggestions are made as to how the

improvements could be implemented. Detail is appropriate to level and time allowed.

Understanding, expression, literacy and use of psychological terminology are good. The

answer is competently structured and organised and is grammatically correct with only

occasional spelling errors.

(f) Answers are likely to refer to:

- More natural/realistic behaviour will be recorded. - Improved reliability. - Improved generalisability. - Improved usefulness. - Changes in findings/results. - Advantages/disadvantages of improving possible ethical issues. - Sampling problems. - Cost and time implications.

- Other appropriate suggestions should be considered and accepted.

0 marks – No or irrelevant answer eg repetition of suggestions made in part (e).

1-3 marks – Implications are very basic and lack detail (eg one or two general statements are identified such as increased EV, no demand characteristics). Some understanding may be evident. Expression is generally poor. The answer is unstructured, lacks organisation, grammatical structure is poor and there are many spelling errors. There are few, if any, links to the chosen study.

NB: A maximum of 3 marks can be gained if the answer is not linked to the chosen study or relate to only one implication.

4-6 marks – Description of implications is accurate. Detail is good and some understanding is evident. Expression and use of psychological terminology is reasonable. The answer has some structure and organisation. The answer is mostly grammatically correct with some spelling errors. There are some clear, appropriate links to the chosen study.

7-8 marks – Description of implications is accurate and clear links to the chosen study are evident throughout. Detail is appropriate to level and time allowed. Understanding is very good. Expression and use of psychological terminology is good. The answer is competently structured and organised. The answer is grammatically correct with occasional spelling errors

Ecological Validity This type of validity refers to how well a study can be related to or reflects

real life. It can be argued that a piece of research conducted in an artificial

environment such as a lab, where everyone knows that they are taking part

in an experiment is not going to produce the same results as a study

conducted in a more realistic environment. Psychologists would say that such

research is low in ecological validity.

Reliability Reliability refers to how consistent a measuring device is. A measurement is

said to be reliable or consistent if the measurement can produce similar

results if used again in similar circumstances. That means that only really

controlled laboratory experiments are really reliable as they have control of

many of the possible extraneous or confounding variables. An extraneous

variable is one which is not the independent variables but which has an effect

on the dependent variable if it is not controlled.

Validity

This refers to whether a study measures or examines what it claims to measure or examine. Questionnaires are said to often lack validity for a

number of reasons. Participants may lie; give answers that are desired and so on. It is argued that qualitative data is more valid than quantitative data.

Can a study be reliable without being valid?

Can a study be valid without being reliable?

Strengths and weaknesses of ecological validity?

Qualitative vs. quantitative data

Qualitative research produces descriptive data. Quantitative research produces numerical data. Self-report methods, observations, case studies and content analysis can be used as part of qualitative research. Experiments, correlations, self-report methods, observations and content analysis can be used as part of quantitative research.

Study

Longitudinal vs. snapshot design

A longitudinal study collects evidence on groups of people as they change and

develop. It involves repeated observations over a long period of time. Such

studies usually aim to compare the same individuals at different ages, in

which case the IV might be age.

The alternative is to have a snapshot study in which participants of different

ages or from different groups is studied simultaneously, often only once, and

their behaviour compared using one set of data.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative data?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative data?

Ethics These are a set of principles that are intended to ensure that psychological research is carried out with consideration of the dignity and well being of the

research participants. Deception

Intentional deception of the participants should be avoided wherever possible. Participants should never be deliberately misled without strong scientific

justification. Informed consent

The researcher should inform the participants of the objectives of the research and of all the aspects that might reasonably interfere with their willingness to

participate. If children are involved, then it is essential for their parents or guardians to be fully informed of the procedures of the research and to gain their

consent. Protection of participants

Researchers have a primary responsibility to protect participants from harm, both physical and psychological. Participants should not be exposed to any risks that are greater than they would encounter in everyday life.

Debriefing When any participant knows they have been involved in a piece of research, they

should be provided with any information necessary to complete their understanding of the research they have been involved in at the end. The

researcher should discuss the participant’s experiences with them and must try to deal with any negative effects of the research, and if necessary, arrange for

support. Right to withdraw

Every participant has the right to withdraw from research at any time, regardless of having received payment. They also have the right to withdraw their data

from being used in the research.

Why should ethics be adhered to?

In what circumstances is it acceptable to break ethical guidelines?

Method Features Main advantages Main disadvantages

1 Laboratory

experiment

IV manipulated,

effect on DV

measured

2 Field

experiment

Same as above

but in real life

setting

4 Case study A detailed study

of one person

using a variety of

methods

6 Questionnaire

(self-report)

Questions asked

and answered in

written from

7 Interview (self-

report)

Questions asked

and answered in

spoken medium,

often video-

taped

8 Observational

study

Behaviours are

observed and

recorded

Practice Questions

Question 1: Validity

Rosenhan

Baron – Cohen

Reicher & Haslam Using ONE of the above studies, answer the following questions: a) What was the aim of your chosen study? (2) b) Describe the sample used in your chosen study and give one limitation of it. (6) c) Describe how the data was gathered in your chosen study. (6) d) Give one way in which the data collection was valid and one way in which it lacked validity. (6) e) Suggest two changes to your chosen study and outline any methodological implications these changes may have. (8) f) Outline the results of your chosen study. (8)

Question 2: Longitudinal

Studies

Freud

Thigpen & Cleckley

Savage-Rumbuagh Using ONE of the above studies, answer the following questions: a) Briefly outline the research method used in your chosen study. (2) b) Explain why your chosen study can be considered a longitudinal study. (6) c) With reference to your chosen study, suggest one strength and one weakness of conducting longitudinal studies. (6) d) Describe the procedure followed in your chosen study. (8) e) Suggest how the procedure followed in your chosen study could be improved. (8) f) Outline the implications of the procedural changes you have suggested for your chosen study. (8) Section B Total (36)

Question 3: Ecological Validity

Studies

Loftus & Palmer

Dement & Kleitman

Milgram Using ONE of the above studies, answer the following questions: a) Briefly outline the research method used in your chosen study. (2) b) Explain why your chosen study can be considered to have low ecological validity. (6) c) With reference to your chosen study, suggest two weaknesses of having low ecological validity. (6) d) Describe how your chosen study was conducted. (8) e) Suggest how the ecological validity of your chosen study could be improved. (8) f) Outline the implications of the changes you have suggested for your chosen study. (8)

Question 4: Reliability Studies

Thigpen & Cleckley

Bandura, Ross & Ross

Freud Using ONE of the above studies, answer the following questions: a) Briefly outline the aim of your chosen study. (2) b) Describe how the data was gathered in your chosen study. (6) c) Explain why your chosen study can be considered to lack reliability. (6) d). Outline the results of your chosen study. (8) e) Suggest how the reliability of your chosen study could be improved. (8) f) Outline the implications of the changes you have suggested for your chosen study. (8) Section B Total (36)