© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 2 Methodology: How Social Psychologists Do Research

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Chapter 2Chapter 2Chapter 2Chapter 2

Methodology: Methodology:

How Social Psychologists Do How Social Psychologists Do ResearchResearch


Chapter OutlineChapter Outline

I. Social Psychology: An Empirical Science


Social Psychology: Social Psychology: An Empirical ScienceAn Empirical ScienceMethodsMethods

Social psychology is an empirical science, with a well-developed set of methods to answer questions about social behaviour.

There are three types of methods (see Table 2.1):

i) Observational method

ii) Correlational method

iii) Experimental method




II. Formulating Hypotheses and

Theories


Formulating Hypotheses and Formulating Hypotheses and TheoriesTheories A theory is an organized set of principles that can be used to explain observed phenomena.

Social psychologists, like other researchers, engage in a continual process of theory refinement—they develop a theory, test specific hypotheses derived from that theory, and based on the results, revise the theory and formulate new hypotheses.

Researchers often observe a phenomenon in everyday life, construct a theory about why the phenomenon occurred, and design a study to test their theory (e.g., Kitty Genovese).



III. Descriptive Methods: Describing Social Behaviour


Descriptive MethodsDescriptive Methods

The Observational Method

The observational method is a technique whereby a researcher observes people and systematically records measurements of their behaviour.

It involves a trained social scientist who observes and codes behaviour according to a prearranged set of criteria.



The Observational Method: Operational Definitions

In all observational research it is important for the researchers to define clearly the behaviours of interest. This is done through the use of operational definitions of variables.

An operational definition is the specification of how variables are measured, or manipulated.



The Observational Method: Participant Observation

Some situations require participant observation.

Participant observation is a form of the observational method whereby the observer interacts with the people being observed, but tries not to alter the situation in any way (see Festinger et al, 1956 disconfirmed prophecy study; Ezekiel, 1995 extreme political cults study).



The Observational Method: Degree of Observer Participation (Obtrusiveness)

The nature of the observational method varies according to the degree to which the observer actively participates in the activities.

At one extreme the observer neither participates nor intervenes in any way (unobtrusive); at the other, the observer participates fully (obtrusive).



The Observational Method: Problem of Observer Intrusiveness

The problem of observer intrusiveness is that people tend to change their behaviour to show themselves in a positive light when they know they are being observed.



The Observational Method: The Problem of Observer Intrusiveness

The problem of observer intrusiveness has been overcome with the introduction of portable microphones and video cameras.

Canadian researchers have developed a unique unobtrusive method for measuring bullying behaviour in school settings:

Children wear waist pouches containing microphones and a video camera which continuously records their behaviour (see Pepler et al, 1995, 1997, 1998 studies).


Descriptive MethodsDescriptive MethodsThe Observational Method: The Problem of

Accuracy in the Portrayal of Social Behaviour

How can we be sure that the observers are presenting an accurate portrayal of social behaviour? One way is to establish interjudge reliability.

Interjudge reliability is the level of agreement between two or more people who independently observe and code a set of data.

By showing that two or more judges independently come up with the same observations, researchers ensure that the observations are not the subjective impressions of one individual.



The Observational Method: Good for Describing Behaviour

The observational method is a good one if the researcher’s goal is to provide a description of social behaviour.

One significant drawback, however, is that certain kinds of behaviour are difficult to observe because they occur rarely, or in private.

—E.g., to determine how witnesses react to violent crime would require waiting for a violent crime to occur, and being ready to record it.



Archival Analysis: A form of Observation

Another form of the observational method is archival analysis.

Archival analysis is a form of the observational method whereby the researcher examines the accumulated documents, or archives of a culture (e.g., diaries, novels, magazines, and newspapers).



Archival Analysis: Drawbacks

Archival analysis is a powerful form of observational research because it allows a unique look at the values and interests of a culture. But, again, there are drawbacks.

One notable drawback is that the researcher is at the mercy of the original compiler of the data, and essential information may be missing from the material, with no recourse available.



The Correlational Method: Relations Between Variables

Often researchers want to understand relations between variables, particularly variables that are difficult to observe (e.g., viewing TV violence and aggressive behaviour). To do this they use the correlational method.

The correlational method is a technique whereby researchers systematically measure two or more variables, and assess the relation between them (i.e., how much one can be predicted from the other).



The Correlational Method: The Correlation Coefficient

Researchers look at relationships by calculating the correlation coefficient.

The correlation coefficient is a statistical technique that assesses how well you can predict one variable based on another

—e.g., how well you can predict people’s weight from their height.


Descriptive MethodsDescriptive MethodsThe Correlational Method: Correlation

CoefficientsCorrelation coefficients are expressed as numbers that range from –1.00 to +1.00, where +1.00 means that two variables are perfectly positively correlated, and –1.00 means they are perfectly negatively correlated.

Positive correlations indicate that an increase in one variable is associated with an increase in the other.

Negative correlations indicate that an increase in one variable is associated with a decrease in the other.


Descriptive MethodsDescriptive MethodsThe Correlational Method: Used in Surveys

The correlational method is often used in surveys__which is a convenient way of measuring people’s attitudes and predicting their subsequent behaviour.

- eg. Knowledge about aids and the tendency to engage in safer sex.


Descriptive MethodsDescriptive MethodsThe Correlational Method:Surveys:Random

Selection

Surveys have many advantages, one is the ability to sample representative segments of the population through random selection of people from the population.

Random selection is a way of ensuring that a sample of people is representative of a population, by giving everyone in the population an equal chance of being selected for the sample.


Descriptive MethodsDescriptive MethodsThe Correlational Method: Surveys:Failure of

Random Selection

Failure of randomization can have dire consequences, inevitably leading to inaccurate conclusions__as for example, in the famous 1936 Literary Digest study which relied on responses only from those families that had telephones (upper class) to predict who would win the presidency in the US

These researchers did not achieve a sample representative of the voting population and therefore came up with a wrong conclusion.



The Correlational Method:Surveys:Accuracy of Responses

Another potential problem with survey data is the accuracy of responses.

-eg, Asking people to predict how they might behave in some hypothetical situation, or to explain how they behaved as they did in the past leads to inaccurate data.

Often people don’t know the answer, but think they do (see Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).




Finally, the wording of the questions on surveys can lead to inaccurate (or certainly different) conclusions.




-eg, in a survey of attitudes toward affirmative action, different levels of agreement were obtained when the question was worded, ‘How important is it to guarantee equality between women and men in all aspects of life?’ than when the wording was, ‘Do you think the government in Ottawa should make sure that a certain proportion of top jobs in government go to women?’ (see Fletcher & Chalmers, 1991)



Limits of the Correlational Method

A major shortcoming of the correlational method is that it tells only if two variables are related; it does not tell the causal direction of the relationship, i.e., whether a causes b, or b causes a, or a third variable, c, influences both a and b.

Unfortunately, one of the most common methodological errors is to jump to the conclusion that the first variable causes the second on the basis that they are related to each other.



IV. The Experimental Method:

Answering Causal Questions


The Experimental MethodThe Experimental Method

Experimental Method

It is the use of the experimental method that allows the researcher to determine causal influence of one variable over the other.

The experimental method is the method in which the researcher randomly assigns participants to different conditions and ensures that these conditions are identical except for the independent variable (the one thought to have a causal effect on people’s responses).



Independent and Dependent Variables

The experimental method utilizes both independent and dependent variables.

The independent variable is manipulated by the researcher. It is the variable presumed to cause the change in the other variable.

The dependent variable is the one measured by the researcher to see if changes depend on the level of the independent variable (see Fig. 2.1)




Internal Validity in Experiments

In order for the results to be valid, experimental studies must have internal validity.

To ensure internal validity, researchers must make sure that nothing else besides the independent variable can affect the dependent variable.

This is accomplished by controlling all extraneous variables and by randomly assigning people to different experimental conditions.




Random assignment to condition is the process whereby all participants have an equal chance of taking part in any condition of an experiment.

Through random assignment researchers can be relatively certain that differences in participants’ personalities, or backgrounds, are distributed evenly across conditions.




However, even with random assignment, there is a small probability that different characteristics of people are distributed differently across conditions.

To guard against misinterpreting results, scientists calculate the probability level (p-value) that their results would occur by chance.




The probability level (p-value) is a number calculated with statistical techniques, that tells researchers how likely it is that the results of their experiment occurred by chance and not because of the independent variable(s).

The convention in science (social psychology) is to consider results significant if the probability level is less than 5 in 100 that the results might be due to chance factors and and not the independent variables studied.



External Validity in Experiments

One drawback with the experimental method is that it can become somewhat artificial, and remote from real life because of the emphasis on control of extraneous variables, and random assignment of people to conditions. When this happens we say the study lacks external validity.

External validity is the extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and other people.




Sometimes there is difficulty generalizing across situations. To minimize this possibility experiments are designed to be as similar as possible to real-life situations. This is referred to as mundane realism.

Mundane realism is the extent to which an experiment is similar to real-life situations.




An important kind of realism is psychological realism.

Psychological realism is the extent to which the psychological process triggered in an experiment is similar to psychological processes that occur in everyday life.

Psychological realism can be high in an experiment, even if mundane realism is low.




To make a study psychologically real, it is often necessary to tell participants a cover story—a false description of the study’s purpose.

A cover story is a description of the purpose of the study, given to participants that is different from its true purpose.

Cover stories are used to maintain psychological realism.




One of the best ways to increase external validity is by conducting field experiments.

Field experiments are experiments conducted in natural settings, rather than in the laboratory.




Another concern is generalizability across people. Typically, lab studies use a random sample from the university population.

Studies need to sample from the population as a whole for the results to truly apply to all persons.




The ultimate test of an experiment’s external validity is replication.

Replication refers to repeating a study, often with different subject populations, or in different settings.




When many studies on one problem are conducted, the results are somewhat variable.

To make sense out of this we use a statistical technique called meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that averages the results of two or more studies to see if the effect of an independent variable is reliable.




Finally, there is concern for generalizability across cultures.

Some psychological processes are generalizable across cultures, others are not.

As more cross-cultural research is conducted we will be able to determine which social psychological processes are universal and which are culture-bound.



The Basic Dilemma of the Experimental Psychologist

When conducting experiments in psychology, there is almost always a trade-off between internal and external validity,

between having enough control over the situation to ensure that no extraneous variables are influencing the results, and

making sure the results can be generalized to everyday life.



The Basic Dilemma of the Experimental Psychologist

Generally, both internal and external validity are not captured in a single experiment.

Most social psychologists opt first for internal validity, conducting lab experiments in which people are randomly assigned and extraneous variables are controlled.

Others, however, prefer external validity to lab control, conducting most of their research in field studies.

Still others do both.



V. Ethical Issues in Social Psychology


Ethical Issues in Social PsychologyEthical Issues in Social Psychology

Informed Consent and Deception

Researchers are concerned about the welfare of the individuals participating in their studies. Yet, some of the cover-stories require deception—which creates a dilemma for the researcher.

The dilemma is less problematic if researchers obtain informed consent from subjects prior to participation.



Informed Consent and Deception

Informed consent is the procedure whereby researchers explain the nature of the experiment to participants before it begins, and obtain their consent to participate.

Deception is the procedure whereby participants are misled about the true purpose of a study, or events that will actually transpire.



Debriefing

When deception is used, the post-experimental interview, called the debriefing session, is crucial.

Debriefing is the process of explaining to the participants, at the end of the experiment, the purpose of the study and exactly what transpired.



Debriefing

A number of guidelines have been developed to deal with dilemmas about the ethics of experiments, and to ensure that the dignity and safety of research participants are protected (see CPA Ethical Guidelines; Fig. 2.2).




VI. Basic versus Applied Research


Basic Versus Applied ResearchBasic Versus Applied Research

Basic and Applied Research Topics

How do people decide on a topic of research? Are they simply curious? Or do they wish to solve a social problem? Basic research deals with the former; and applied research deals with the latter.

Basic research involves studies that are designed to find the best answer as to why people behave the way they do, and that are conducted purely for reasons of intellectual curiosity.


Basic Versus Applied ResearchBasic Versus Applied Research

Basic and Applied Research Topics

Applied research involves studies designed specifically to solve a particular social problem.

Building a theory of behaviour is usually secondary to solving the problem.

The End

Documents

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 2 Methodology: How Social Psychologists Do Research