1.1 Lab: Involves the experimenter
manipulating IV and measuring what
affect is has on the DV.
1.1.1 Possible to test cause
1.1.2 Replicable, standardised procedures.
1.1.3 Artificial and lacks ecological validity.
1.1.4 Demand characteristics.
1.1.5 Results likely to be bias by sampling.
1.1.6 Increases control and accuracy.
1.2 Field: Manipulation of the independent
variable in a real-life setting.
1.2.1 Greater ecological validity than lab.
1.2.2 Fewer demand characteristics if
participants are unaware.
1.2.3 Difficult to replicate.
1.2.4 Lack of control = extraneous variables
1.2.5 Less bias from sampling.
1.2.6 Ethical problems of consent,
invasion of privacy and
1.3 Natural/Quasi: The IV changes through
a natural occurrence and the researcher
just records the effect on the IV.
1.3.1 High ecological validity.
1.3.2 Fewer demand characteristics.
1.3.3 Cannot replicate.
1.3.4 Ethical problems.
1.3.5 Hard to infer cause and effect.
1.3.6 Little bias from sampling.
2.1 Naturalistic: A recording of spontaneously
occurring behaviour in someone's own natural
2.1.1 Valid picture of behaviour.
2.1.2 High ecological validity if researcher is hidden.
2.1.3 Can be costly and time consuming.
2.1.4 Difficult to be objective.
2.1.5 Replication difficult.
2.1.6 Sometimes more ethical than other methods.
2.2 Controlled: Recording of spontaneously
2.2.1 More control = more accurate.
2.2.2 Easier to replicate (standardised
instructions) than less controlled methods.
2.2.3 Awareness of being observed may
affect participant behaviour.
126.96.36.199 Hawthorne effect.
2.2.4 Lower ecological validity.
2.2.5 Avoids ethical problems as uses consent forms.
2.2.6 Demand Characteristics (coffee, lack of sleep etc).
2.3 Participant: Researcher becomes involved in
the everyday life of the participant with or
without their knowledge.
2.3.1 Get the truth = reliable results.
2.3.2 Detailed and in-depth
2.3.3 Very risky to the researcher.
2.3.4 Difficult to record data - cant
give yourself away.
2.3.5 High ecological validity.
2.3.6 Difficult to be objective (may like person).
2.4 Content Analysis: Content of a communication, such as a
TV programme, a conversation or an article, is coded,
recorded and analysed.
2.4.1 Reduces complex information into numbers to
enable comparisons. (Quantitative data).
2.4.3 Cannot establish cause and effect.
2.4.4 Difficult to decide what and how to code.
2.4.5 Time consuming.
3.1 Structured: Participants are asked a series of fixed
questions with a limited range of verbal answer options
3.1.1 High reliability.
3.1.3 Cant guarantee honesty.
3.1.4 Less valid due to closed
3.1.5 Can't infer cause and effect.
3.1.6 Fast to complete.
3.2 Semi-structured: Contains guidance for questions for
verbal interviews with participants but phrasing and timing
may vary (can add questions).
3.2.1 Large amount of detail.
3.2.2 Fairly flexible and sensitive.
3.2.3 Harder to analyse than structured.
3.2.4 Difficult to compare.
3.2.5 High validity.
3.2.6 Can't guarantee honesty.
3.3 Clinical: Interview with semi - structured
guidelines allowing further questions to
elaborate upon answers. Questions can be
rephrased and follow up questions added.
3.3.1 Very flexible and sensitive = high in validity.
3.3.2 In-depth information.
3.3.3 Difficult to replicate.
3.3.4 Cant guarantee honesty.
3.3.5 Easy to analyse.
3.3.6 Can't infer cause and effect.
3.4 Unstructured: Contains a topic area for discussion
but no fixed questions or ways of answering. The
interviewer just helps.
3.4.1 Highly detailed data.
3.4.2 Extremely flexible.
3.4.3 Not standardised so cannot replicate.
3.4.4 Problem with generalising.
3.4.5 Highly valid data.
3.4.6 Problem with reliability.
4 Other methods
4.1 Questionnaire: A written method of gaining data that
does not require a researcher to be present.
4.1.1 High in objectivity.
4.1.2 Highly replicable.
4.1.3 A lot of people don't give them back.
4.1.4 May give socially desirable answers.
4.1.5 Large amount of data produced.
4.1.6 Lacks flexibility.
4.2 Case study: A detailed study of an
individual or particular group. Often
applied to unusual examples of
4.2.1 High ecological validity.
4.2.2 Detailed data.
4.2.3 Can't generalise due to
limitations of sample.
4.2.4 Cannot replicate.
4.2.5 Good method for studying unusual
4.2.6 Low reliability due to retrospective recall.
4.3 Correlations: A data analysis which can involve data collected from
observations, interviews, questionnaire and other methods. It
measures the relationship between two or more variables to see if a
trend exists between them.
4.3.1 Data is quantitative.
4.3.2 Data may have already been collected so
little time or effort is involved.
4.3.3 No cause and effect can be inferred but it often is.
4.3.4 Other factors affecting the correlation
may not be noted by the researcher, but
may influence the variables.
4.3.5 Provides information on the
degree of a relationship in
the form of a correlation
4.3.6 Ethics - misinterpretation. Sometimes the media
infer causality from a correlation.