Research Methods Part I: WORKBOOK

______________

Name:

Experimental Research
The experimental method is the most widely used research method in psychology. It is a scientific method that uses participants in a formal trial to confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis. In an experiment, data is gathered under controlled conditions to test a hypothesis by exposing participants to a treatment and observing and measuring its effect to determine whether the treatment influences or causes a change in the aspect of their behaviour that is of interest. Controlled conditions allow the researcher to establish the conditions experienced by the participant; this enables them to determine the effects of a treatment in other words, identify cause-and-effect relationships between variables. To do this all other variables need to be kept to a minimum (but more on this later). Key terms: A research hypothesis is ____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Variables are _____________________________________________________________________

An independent variable is __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ A dependant variable is _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________

y Construction of research hypothesis

Try it yourself: for each scenario below: a) Identify the independent variable b) Identify the dependent variable c) Formulate your own research hypothesis Scenario 1: A group of researchers wanted to investigate heart rate and blood pressure in groups of children watching violent and non-violent films. a) c) b)

2011

p1

Scenario 2: For his Phd, a university student investigates the effects of sleep deprivation on adults solving simple mathematical problems. She keeps group 1 awake for 12 hours, group 2 awake for 24 hours and group 3 awake for 36 hours. She then gives all participants a series of basic arithmetic problems to solve. a) c) b)

Scenario 3: Dr Hunter wants to research the influence of caffeine on memory ability of middle aged men. He gives his experimental group four cups of coffee a day and then measures the number of words they recall on a series of short-word recollection tests. The control completes the same test but does not consume the coffee. a) c) b)

y Identification of operational independent and dependent variables

In order to test a hypothesis a psychologist must first operationalize the concept they are studying, that is they must make it physically measurable or testable. Therefore, when we identify an operational variable, we are defining or describing exactly what that variable is and exactly how it will be measured. Different studies could measure the same concept in different ways, for example when testing intelligence we might measure the variable of intelligence by the number of puzzles solved in an hour or we might measure it as the score achieved on an IQ test. Try it yourself: for each of the examples bellow identify and operationalize the IV & DV. 1) Music and studying. 2) Sleep and coffee. 3) Alcohol and driving. 1) IV: Operationalised variables

DV:

2011

p2

2) IV:

Operationalised variables

DV:

3) IV:

Operationalised variables

DV:

Now use your operationalized variables to create a hypothesis for each example. Remember a research hypothesis must contain the following things: y y y 1) The population from which the sample has been selected. The operationalized IV and DV. A prediction of the relationship between the variables ie. What is the predicted effect of the IV on the DV?

2)

3)

2011

p3

y Identification of extraneous and potential confounding variables

So now that you have formulated your hypothesis the next step is to design and conduct an experiment. Whenever you do this your aim is to minimise the amount of variables so that at the end you can see the effect of the IV on the DV not the influence of any other variables. We call any variable, other than the IV, that may cause a change in the DV an extraneous variable. When an extraneous variable actually succeeds in confusing (or confounding) the results, it becomes a confounding variable. The trick is to eliminate or control for these variables before the study is carried out so that confounding variables do not occur. Extraneous Variable Individual participant differences Explanation Participant variables are individual differences in the personal characteristics of research participants such as age, gender, motivation, memory, personality, ethnicity and gender. Possible effect on results

Order effects (practice effects)

When prior knowledge of a task or situation influences a participant s performance, which in turn influences the results this may be due to practice or alternatively because of boredom or fatigue. This variable may occur when participants are used in both the experimental and control group. Changes in the participant s behaviour that are caused by the influence of the experimenter. This may be the result of differences in the way the experimenter treats participants due to their own expectations of the study. Changes in behaviour caused by the belief that one has been exposed to a treatment that will affect them in some way.

Experimenter effects

Placebo effects

Artificiality*

Demand characteristics*

Non-standardized instructions and procedures*

*Specific to the Unit 4 study design.

2011

p4

y Ways of minimising confounding and extraneous variables.

Counter balancing alters the order that participants experience each condition, where half the participants in an experiment are exposed to the control condition first and the other half are exposed to the experimental condition first; this is then reversed in the second instance. Counterbalancing helps to balance the order effects over the experiment so that each effect occurs equally in both conditions. Single blind procedures an experimental procedure where participants do not know which experimental condition they have been assigned to, but the experimenter does. Double blind procedures an experimental procedure where neither the experimenter nor the participants know which experimental condition the participants has been allocated to. Placebos are a fake treatment that has no active effect, such as a fake pill or injection. Try it yourself: read the scenario s below, identify a possible extraneous variable and choose a method that you could apply to prevent it. Scenario 1: Maddi was conducting research investigating the effect of music on study. She gave her participants a list of names starting with A and asked them to learn it in silence. After one minute they wrote down all the names they could recall. She then handed the same group of participants another list of names starting with A and she played music as they were learning the names. After one minute they wrote down all the names they could recall. Extraneous variable: Effect on results:

Way to prevent extraneous variable:

Scenario 2: A teacher decides to give half of his class a new super drug he has discovered, which is intended to improve intelligence. The students in the other half of the class are told they will receive no drug and will have to compete academically with the rest of the class as best as they can. Extraneous variable: Effect on results:

Way to prevent extraneous variable:

Scenario 3: Minh is a university graduate researching whether caffeine can improve driving ability. She is hoping that this is the case so that she can write her thesis on it. Group A ingests caffeine before taking a simulated driving test, and Group B does not ingest any caffeine before taking a simulated driving test. As members of Group A are conducting the driving test, Minh actively encourages them. When members of Group B conduct their driving test, Minh stands over them and points out their errors. Extraneous variable: Effect on results:

2011

p5

Ways to prevent extraneous variable:

Scenario 4: Psychville Basketball Club is trying to test the effectiveness of a new training program on shooting accuracy. They put their 10 tallest players through the training program and then asked them to shoot 100 balls from the three-point line. Their 10 shortest players did not complete the training program but also shot 100 balls from the three-point line. The shooting accuracy of both groups was compared. Extraneous variable: Effect on results:

Way to prevent extraneous variable:

y Evaluation of different types of experimental research designs.

Explanation Strengths Limitations

Matched participants 2011

Independent groups

Repeated measures

p6

Your task: How do you eliminate or control for the following extraneous variables? In your response indicate whether the method eliminates (e) or controls (c) the variable and how it does this (Note: some will have more than one answer). Individual participant differences

Order effects

Experimenter effect

Placebo effects

Artificiality*

Demand characteristics*

Non-standardised instructions and procedures*

2011

p7

y Ethical principles and professional conduct.

Role of Ethics Committees Researchers must submit detailed plans of their proposal to the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of their university or research institution. The ethics committee will study the plan and indicate any changes that must occur before the research goes ahead. Ethics committees weigh the potential benefits of the research to society against any foreseeable risks of discomfort to participants. The ethics committee will take into account each of the following ethical considerations before giving approval: The Role of the Experimenter The researcher must always act in a professional manner, protect participant s physical and psychological welfare and make sure all participant rights are upheld. Participants Rights The individual rights of all participants that must be respected by the researcher are outlined in ethical guidelines related to psychological research (APS Australian Psychological Society & NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council). y Confidentiality: participants are not to be identified in any way in terms of test results and their involvement in the study (unless written consent is obtained). Data needs to be stored and disposed of using secure procedures and the means by which confidentiality will be maintained must be explained to participants. Voluntary Participation: participants must decide to participate in an experiment of their own free will, there should not be any pressure to participate (e.g. coercion or bribery) or any negative consequences should they decide not to take part. Withdrawal rights: participants have the right to leave a study at any stage regardless of any possible effects on results. They also have the right to withdraw their results when the study is completed. This must be explained to participants before the study begins. Informed consent: participants must be given information about the study before they agree to take part. For participants who are under the age of 18 or intellectually disabled their guardian must be informed and give consent on their behalf. Debriefing: occurs after the completion of the study and involves telling participants about the results and conclusions of the research. Any erroneous beliefs about the study are corrected, especially if deception was used, and participants are informed of the availability of counselling if they feel they need it.

Use of deception Deception involves withholding the true purpose of the study from participants before the experiment begins. In research it is only permitted if the results would be confounded if the participants had been fully informed before taking part.

2011

p8

Try it yourself: read the scenario and use one colour to highlight where ethics are adhered to and another to highlight where ethics were breached, annotate each highlighted part. A researcher set out to investigate the effect of stress on students reading and comprehension abilities. To obtain a sample she approached the principal of a secondary school. She explained the details of the experiment to the principal, who then volunteered her students for participation in the study. The researcher selected three senior classes for participation in the study. She spoke to each class about the experiment and explained that they would simply be required to complete a measure of reading and comprehension ability. However, she did not mention to the students that during their testing a fake fire alarm would sound and that she planned to insist that they should stay to complete the test, even though the rest of the school was evacuating. She planned to reason with the students by saying that it was clear that it was only a practice run commonly carried out by schools. The principal was aware of this aspect of the experiment and had given her consent to the researcher. During the experiment, the majority of participants wished to evacuate the building once the fire alarm sounded, but were discouraged as it was probably only a practice run . Students were encouraged to stay by enticing them with an early exit to their lunch break. After the experiment was over the true purpose of the study was revealed to participants and they were told that they could withdraw their results from the experiment if they wished. Students were also informed that their school counsellor would be made available to them if necessary. Once the data was gathered, analysed and interpreted, results were released to the principal. Because the results related to reading and comprehension skills relevant to various academic subjects details of individual student performance were distributed to their teachers. __________________________________________________________________________________ Putting it all together: after reading the article on the next page answer the following questions. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) What was the aim of this experiment? Suggest a possible hypothesis for this research. What is the IV and DV? What is the difference between the experimental and control group in this experiment? What is the role of the control group? What research design was used? What are the benefits of this design? Was this the best method to use with this study? Explain your answer. What was the result of this study? Discuss each of the following ethical principals in relation to this study: a. Confidentiality b. Voluntary participation c. Withdrawal rights d. Informed consent procedures e. Use of deception in research f. Debriefing 10) Explain how the concept of beneficence may be used to defend Johnson s work. p9

2011

Ethics and Orphans: The `Monster Study'

Published June 10 2001; San Jose Mercury News. BY JIM DYER.
As a graduate student Mary Tudor, conducted an experiment on children in an orphanage. The experiment used psychological pressure to make children stutter. It was designed by her professor, Dr. Wendell Johnson, to test his new theory on the cause of stuttering. Several of the children suffered lasting damage, but the research helped support the theory and Johnson went on to become one of the nation's most prominent speech pathologists. But he never disclosed the research. The study had ended just before World War II, and as the world learned of Nazi medical experiments on living subjects, the professor's associates warned him to conceal his work on the orphans rather than risk comparisons that could ruin his career. The orphans were not told what had been done to them. Just a number: Remaining objective On Jan 17 1939, Mary Tudor and five fellow speech pathologists from the University of Iowa went to the Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home in Davenport to begin screening children as subjects for the experiment. Tudor had been told to remain objective and indifferent, to assign case numbers to the children and to refer to them in her records only by those numbers. ``It was scientific research, so I was supposed to remain detached,'' Tudor recalled. Mary Korlaske, a 12-year-old fourth-grader, was one of 256 children screened for the experiment. First, she read aloud while the speech pathologists graded her fluency. Then she underwent a battery of eye and dexterity tests. Tudor entered Mary Korlaske as ``Case No. 15 Experimental Group IIA. Normal speaker.'' A baffling torment: What causes stuttering? Wendell Johnson made it his life's work to find the cause, and cure, for stuttering. When he arrived at the University of Iowa as a student in 1926, he intimately understood the affliction Johnson himself was a severe stutterer. By 1936, Johnson began to doubt the prevailing theory that stuttering was an inborn condition and proposed experiments to test its validity. Two years later, he reached a turning point with a series of case studies, in which he conducted interviews with parents and their stuttering children. Every child, he discovered, had been labelled a stutterer at a very early age. ``Stuttering begins in the ear of the listener, not in the mouth of the child,'' he theorized. All children have trouble with their speech when they are young, often repeating words and syllables. By drawing attention to their speech, he reasoned, overzealous parents would make their children so self-conscious and nervous that the children would repeat more words. In time, the children would become so sensitized to their speech that they would not be able to talk without stuttering. `The affliction is caused by the diagnosis,'' Johnson said. Testing a theory: The study starts Johnson began formulating what was to become his ``diagnosogenic theory'': Diagnosing and labelling young children as stutterers when they stammer will worsen the problem and turn them into stutterers. But he needed direct evidence, preferably research conducted in a controlled environment. He turned to the state-run Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home. The university had already conducted numerous research projects using orphans there. In the autumn of 1938, Johnson received permission from orphanage officials to begin his experiment. There was to be two groups of children, one of stutterers and another of normal speakers. Half the children from each group would be assigned to an experimental group, the other half to a control group. Children in the control group would be labelled normal speakers (regardless of whether they stuttered or not) and receive positive therapy (praise and encouragement). Children in the experimental group (regardless of whether they stuttered or not originally) would be labelled stutterers and given negative therapy (criticised for their mistakes).

2011

p10

Participants in the experimental group were first taught what stuttering was and warned that they were showing signs of stuttering. They would then be systematically sensitized to their speech and lectured whenever they repeated a word. If a child was labelled a stutterer, the teachers and matrons would unknowingly reinforce that negative label. After reviewing the speech of 256 orphans, speech pathologists culled 22 subjects: 10 stutterers and 12 normal speakers. They paired the children based on similarities in age, sex, IQ and fluency. Then they randomly assigned one from each pair to the control group and the other to the experimental group. Mary Korlaske and her friend Marion Higdon were paired; Mary landed in the experimental group and Marion became her control. Eager to please: Hoping for new mother Mary Tudor can no longer remember meeting Mary Korlaske that first cold January day. Mary Korlaske, however, has never forgotten. It had been one of her best days at the orphanage, she remembers. She thought that Mary Tudor might become her new mum. Throughout the experiment, she wondered if Tudor was married and had any children. She remembers waiting impatiently during school to be called into the speech therapy sessions and eagerly following Tudor to the testing room. To make a good impression, she talked a lot. Negative therapy: Creating anxiety In the first experimental session Tudor asked Mary Korlaske if she knew anyone who stuttered and Mary said she knew a girl named Dorothy Ossman. Then Mary eagerly began to tell Tudor a story. In the middle of it, Tudor interrupted her when she made a simple repetition, warning the 12-year-old that she was not only beginning to stutter, but that if she didn't work hard to improve it, she would stutter as badly as Dorothy. ``She reacted to the suggestion immediately,'' Tudor noted in her report on the session, ``and her repetitions in speech were more frequent.'' Then Tudor gave Mary advice that she said would help. In fact, it was negative therapy, designed to make the girl more conscious of her speech.

Every week or two, Tudor returned for more sessions. By March, Tudor's dictaphone recordings showed Mary's speech had deteriorated markedly. The girl was having particular problems with words beginning with ``w'' or ``s'' or ``r.'' Mary said she was having trouble reading in class. Tudor noticed that her speech interruptions increased steadily throughout the experimental period. Over the course of four months, they had more than doubled. On May 24, 1939, Johnson drove to the orphanage with Tudor and the crew of speech pathologists to see firsthand the final testing of the 22 orphans. In the experimental groups, subjected to negative therapy, speech had deteriorated for five of the six normal speakers and for three of the five stutterers. In the control groups, only one child suffered more speech interruptions at the end of the experiment. By the end of the summer the experiment had ended. But the orphans remained, and the teachers and matrons continued what they had been told was therapy to help the children with their speech. In the package: An accusation An unexpected package from Mary Korlaske arrived in March 2011 on Tudor s doorstep. Inside was a letter and another package. The writing was messy and at times incoherent. There were many spelling errors. But the message was clear.`You destroyed my life,'' the letter said. ``I could have been a scientist, archeaologist or even president. In stead I became a pityful stutter. The kids made fun of me, my grades fell off, I felt stupid. Clear into my adulthood, I still want to avoide people to this day.

2011

p11

HOLIDAY HOMEWORK The following Learning Activities are to be completed during the holidays. They will need to be completed before the first psychology lesson in 2012.

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

Learning Activity 1.1 page 18 Learning Activity 1.4 page 22 Learning Activity 1.5 page 24 Learning Activity 1.7 page 29 Learning Activity 1.8 page 31 (question 1 only) Learning Activity 1.9 page 35 Learning Activity 1.10 page 36 Learning Activity 1.12 page 39 Learning Activity 1.14 pages 42-43 Learning Activity 1.16 pages 49-50 (questions 2-3f) Learning Activity 1.19 page 53 Learning Activity 1.20 page 56 Learning Activity 1.21 page 60 Learning Activity 1.22 page 63 Learning Activity 1.23 pages 72-73 Learning Activity 1.24 page 74 Learning Activity 1.25 pages 76-77 Learning Activity 1.27 page 83 (questions 2 & 3) True/False page 89 Chapter 1 test pages 90-95 (can be done in a workbook or the textbook)

SEE YOU NEXT YEAR, HAVE A GREAT BREAK!!

WIL 2011

p.12