Class experiments

Class experiments

Social: Prejudice Questionnaire

• Need to know:
• 1. How was data gathered and analysed?
• 2. How could you improve the reliability?
• 3. IV and DV?
• 4. How were variables operationalised?
• 5. Improvements? (at least 2)
• 6. Hypotheses? (experimental and null)
• 7. Controls in place
• 1. Questionnaire, both quantitative and qualitative data, 25 students aged 14-15, snowball/opportunity sample, no stats test (calculated % of positive and negative feedback.
• 2. Multiple people could have analysed the qualitative data and come to an agreement on whether the response was positive or negative.
• 3. IV: the picture/clothing presented, DV: whether the response was positive or negative
• 4. The set list of words had been split into 'positive' and 'negative'.
• 5. Not all pps answered the qualitative questions - to improve they could have been placed at the start of the questionnaire and pps would have been more likely to fill them in because they would not yet be bored of filling in the questionnaire. Secondly, the sample wasn't generalisable - we could ask a wider range of ages eg. 12-19, rather than just 14-15 and then the results could have been applied to all young people.
• 6. Experimental: Young people will show in-group favouritism towards young fashion and out-group hostility towards old fashion. Null: Young people will show no favouritism or hostility to either young or old fashion, any favouritism will be due to chance factors.
• 7. The pictures shown, the order, the environment, the time at which the questionnaire was completed.

Cognitive: Steyvers and Hemmer replica

• Need to know:
• 1. How was the data gathered and analysed?
• 2. How could you improved the reliability?
• 3. IV and DV?
• 4. How were variable operationalised?
• 5. Improvements? (at least 2)
• 6. Hypotheses? (experimental and null)
• 7. Controls in place?
• 1. Field experiment, 4 participants, calculated the standard deviation.
• 2. Use a stopwatch to time the conditions, rather than guessing when 2 seconds or 10 seconds was over.
• 3. IV: time the picture was shown for (2 or 10 seconds), DV: Number of correct objects recalled.
• 4. N/A
• 5. More participants - 4 is too small to find anything of significance. Used an independent groups design as seeing the picture twice may have influenced the results.
• 6. Experimental - When participants see the image for 10 seconds they will remember more correct objects than when they see the image for 2 seconds. Null - There will be no difference in the number of objects correctly recalled from the 2 second and 10 second condition, any difference will be due to chance factors.
• 7. The same images were used in the same order for each participant.

Learning: Ben 10

• Need to know:
• 1.How was the data gathered and analysed?
• 2.How could you improve the reliability?
• 3. IV and DV?
• 4.How were the variables operationalised?
• 5. Improvements? (at least 2)
• 6.Hypotheses? (experimental and null)
• 7.Controls in place?
• 1.Observation/content analysis, 1 episode of Ben 10 Cartoon, Chi-squared test
• 2.Had multiple observers as content analysis can be subjective.
• 3.DV: number of aggressive and number of pro-social acts, IV: N/A
• 4.Aggressive acts were defined as; hitting, killing, verbal name-calling, throwing weapons and shooting. Pro-social acts were defined as; Saving/helping someone, teamwork, compliments and hugging.
• 5.Only watched 1 episode of Ben 10 - not generalisable - could watch more episodes and episodes of other cartoons to see if all children's TV has aggressive acts. Use multiple observers to improve the inter-rater reliability.
• 6. Experimental: In Ben 10 cartoon there will be more aggressive acts than pro-social acts. Null: In Ben 10 cartoon there will be no difference in the number of aggressive and pro-social acts, any difference will be due to chance factors.
• 7.Operationalising 'aggressive acts' and 'pro-social acts'.

Biological: Finger length x aggression

• Need to know:
• 1.How was the data gathered and analysed?
• 2.How could you improve the reliability?
• 3.IV and DV?
• 4.How were the variables operationalised?
• 5.Improvements? (at least 2)
• 6.Hypotheses? (experimental and null)
• 7.Controls in place?
• 1.Correlation, measured 2nd and 4th finger length and took an aggression test, analysed with a Spearman's Rho test.
• 2.Get the same person to measure finger length.
• 3.N/A
• 4.Aggression was measured through the same online aggression test.
• 5.Problems with how aggression was measured - self-report so may have changed answers - measure aggression in another way. Everyone measured their own finger lengths - the same person should do it or maybe even the same too people to improve reliability and inter-rater reliability.
• 6.Experimental: There will be a negative correlation between a male's 2D and 4D finger length ratio and their aggression levels. Null: There will be no correlation between a male's 2D and 4D finger length ratio and their aggression level, any correlation will be due to chance factors.
• 7.Same aggression test.

Clinical: Presentations of schizophrenia

Criminal: EWT video