PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 3 MINDMAP (1)

1. QUESTION 1

1.1. RESEARCH METHODS

1.1.1. CASE STUDY

1.1.1.1. Features: In-depth study of a single person or small group over time, often involving multiple data sources. Strengths: Provides detailed insights into rare phenomena. Can generate hypotheses for further study. Allows exploration of variables that cannot be manipulated ethically. Limitations: Limited generalizability due to small sample size. Potential for researcher bias. Time-consuming and resource-intensive.

1.1.1.1.1. Case Study Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Longitudinal Study Reason for Suggestion: Allows tracking changes over time with larger samples for better generalizability.

1.1.2. OBSERVATION COVERT

1.1.2.1. Features: Participants are unaware they are being observed. Strengths: Reduces demand characteristics, resulting in more natural behavior. Useful in situations where open observation is not possible. Allows study of sensitive topics. Limitations: Ethical concerns regarding lack of consent. Observer bias can affect data collection. May be difficult to replicate.

1.1.2.1.1. Observation (Covert) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Overt Observation Reason for Suggestion: Reduces ethical concerns, as participants are informed and can consent.

1.1.3. OBSERVATION OVERT

1.1.3.1. Features: Participants know they are being observed. Strengths:More ethically sound with informed consent. Easier to ask follow-up questions or clarify behavior. Reduces observer stress in certain environments. Limitations:Observer effect may alter behavior. Can be challenging in sensitive settings. Potential for limited ecological validity

1.1.3.1.1. Observation (Overt) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Covert Observation Reason for Suggestion: Reduces the observer effect, leading to more natural participant behavior.

1.1.4. OBSERVATION PARTICIPANT

1.1.4.1. Features: Researcher actively engages in the group being observed. Strengths: Offers deeper insights by understanding participant perspectives. Builds rapport, which may enhance data quality. Useful in studying social processes in context. Limitations: Observer may become too involved, risking objectivity. Time-consuming and potentially difficult to detach. Ethical issues if deception is involved.

1.1.4.1.1. Observation (Participant) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Non-Participant Observation Reason for Suggestion: Increases objectivity, as the researcher is less involved in the observed setting.

1.1.5. OBSERVATION NON-PARTICIPANT

1.1.5.1. Features: Researcher observes without interacting with participants. Strengths: Less chance of researcher bias influencing participants. Allows for objective observations. Suitable for larger or more public settings. Limitations: Limited insights into participant experiences. Can miss subtle or private behaviors. Observer interpretation may be inaccurate

1.1.5.1.1. Observation (Non-Participant) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Participant Observation Reason for Suggestion: Provides more in-depth understanding by involving the researcher directly with participants.

1.1.6. OBSERVATION NATURALISTIC

1.1.6.1. Features: Observation occurs in a natural environment without intervention. Strengths: High ecological validity due to natural setting. Captures spontaneous behavior. Reduces artificial influences. Limitations: Limited control over variables. Can be difficult to observe rare behaviors. Ethical concerns if participants are unaware.

1.1.6.1.1. Observation (Naturalistic) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Controlled Observation Reason for Suggestion: Enables control over variables, allowing for more focused investigation of specific behaviors.

1.1.7. OBSERVATION CONTROLLED

1.1.7.1. Features: Observation occurs in a structured setting where variables can be controlled. Strengths: Enables control over extraneous variables. Easier to replicate for reliability. Allows for precise measurements. Limitations:Reduced ecological validity. Participants may alter behavior due to artificial setting. Expensive and requires specialized facilities

1.1.7.1.1. Observation (Controlled) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Naturalistic Observation Reason for Suggestion: Increases ecological validity by observing behaviors in a real-world setting.

1.1.8. OBSERVATION STRUCTURED

1.1.8.1. Features: Pre-determined categories or systems are used to record behavior. Strengths: Increases reliability by standardizing observation criteria. Simplifies data comparison.Reduces observer interpretation bias. Limitations: May overlook behaviors not included in criteria. Limited flexibility in data collection. Reduces the richness of qualitative data.

1.1.8.1.1. Observation (Structured) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Unstructured Observation Reason for Suggestion: Allows for unexpected behaviors to emerge, providing richer qualitative data.

1.1.9. OBSERVATION UNSTRUCTURED

1.1.9.1. Features: No predetermined categories; open-ended recording of behaviors. Strengths: Captures a full range of behaviors for in-depth analysis. Flexible and adaptable to unexpected findings. Allows for rich qualitative data collection. Limitations: Harder to compare across cases. Increased observer bias risk. Time-consuming data analysis

1.1.9.1.1. Observation (Unstructured) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Structured Observation Reason for Suggestion: Enhances reliability by setting criteria, enabling easier comparison of findings.

1.1.10. INTERVIEW UNSTRUCTURED

1.1.10.1. Features: Informal, open-ended questions allowing for spontaneous responses. Strengths: High flexibility for exploring unexpected topics.Generates rich, detailed data. Encourages participants to express their views freely. Limitations: Harder to analyze and compare responses.Increased interviewer bias risk. Time-consuming

1.1.10.1.1. Interview (Unstructured) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Semi-Structured Interview Reason for Suggestion: Allows for flexible questioning while maintaining consistency across interviews.

1.1.11. INTERVIEW SEMI-STRUCTURED

1.1.11.1. Features: Mix of open-ended questions with some structure. Strengths: Balance between flexibility and structure. Easier to compare responses. Reduces interviewer bias while allowing depth. Limitations: Can be difficult to maintain consistency. Time-consuming to conduct and analyze. May miss some unexpected insights.

1.1.11.1.1. Interview (Semi-Structured) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Structured Interview Reason for Suggestion: Increases comparability across participants due to standardized questioning.

1.1.12. INTERVIEW STRUCTURED

1.1.12.1. Features: Standardized questions with a set sequence. Strengths: Easy to replicate and compare data. Reduced interviewer bias. Efficient data collection. Limitations: Limited flexibility in responses. May not capture participant nuance. Can feel rigid to participants.

1.1.12.1.1. nterview (Structured) Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Semi-Structured Interview Reason for Suggestion: Provides flexibility to explore participant responses in more depth.

1.1.13. FOCUS GROUP

1.1.13.1. Features: Group discussion led by a moderator. Strengths: Generates diverse perspectives in a short time. Encourages participants to discuss openly. Useful for exploring social dynamics. Limitations: Difficult to control group dynamics. Risk of conformity or social desirability bias. Analyzing group data can be challenging

1.1.13.1.1. Focus Group Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Individual Interviews Reason for Suggestion: Reduces peer pressure, encouraging more honest individual responses.

1.1.14. QUESTIONNAIRE

1.1.14.1. Features: Written questions allowing for standardized data collection. Strengths: Can reach a large number of people efficiently. Anonymity encourages honest responses. Data is easy to analyze quantitatively. Limitations: Limited depth of responses. Potential for misunderstanding questions. Response rates can be low.

1.1.14.1.1. Questionnaire Suggested Additional/Alternative Method: Structured Interview Reason for Suggestion: Allows for clarifying participant responses, reducing potential misunderstandings.

1.2. SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

1.2.1. Random Sampling Features: Every member has an equal chance of selection. Strengths: Reduces sampling bias; high generalizability. Limitations: May be difficult to access all members of the population; can be time-consuming.

1.2.2. Opportunity (Convenience) Sampling Features: Uses participants who are readily available. Strengths: Quick and easy to gather participants; cost-effective. Limitations: High risk of bias; low generalizability.

1.2.3. Purposive Sampling Features: Selects individuals based on specific characteristics. Strengths: Ensures relevance to research question; can target hard-to-reach populations. Limitations: Limited generalizability; potential researcher bias.

1.2.4. Self-Selected (Volunteer) Sampling Features: Participants choose to take part. Strengths: Motivated participants; easy to obtain a sample. Limitations: High risk of volunteer bias; may not represent the population.

1.2.5. Snowball (Network) Sampling Features: Existing participants recruit new ones. Strengths: Useful for hard-to-reach groups; efficient in social research. Limitations: Potential sampling bias; low generalizability.

1.2.6. Stratified Sampling Features: Divides population into strata and samples each. Strengths: Increases representativeness; reduces sampling error. Limitations: Time-consuming; requires knowledge of population characteristics.

1.2.7. Quota Sampling Features: Ensures specific proportions of subgroups. Strengths: Representative sample for subgroup analysis; efficient. Limitations: Not truly random; potential for bias.

2. QUESTION 2

2.1. Ethical Considerations in Reporting Results: Reporting Individual Results to Participants Ethical Considerations: Confidentiality: Protects personal data by anonymizing results. Right to Withdraw: Ensures participants can remove their data if they choose. Feedback: Provides participants with understandable summaries of findings. Publishing the Findings Ethical Considerations: Anonymity: Maintains participant privacy in published reports. Integrity: Ensures the findings are accurately and honestly reported. Acknowledgment of Limitations: Clearly outlines study limitations for transparency. Applying the Findings Ethical Considerations: Beneficence: Applies findings in a way that benefits society. Avoiding Harm: Prevents misapplication that could harm individuals or groups. Cultural Sensitivity: Considers cultural implications in application.

3. QUESTION 3

3.1. Qualitative Research Considerations: Overarching Concept: Qualitative Research Sampling: Ensures representation of diverse perspectives within the target population. Generalizability: Results are context-specific; limited ability to generalize. Credibility: Enhances accuracy through techniques like member checking and triangulation. Bias: Reduces through reflexivity, peer review, and careful methodology.

3.2. Discuss the possibility of generalizing the findings of the study Threats: Sampling Bias: If the sample is not representative of the population, findings may lack generalizability. Low Ecological Validity: Controlled or lab settings may not reflect real-world situations, limiting applicability to real-life contexts. Small Sample Size: Studies with a small sample may not capture population diversity, reducing the reliability of generalizations. Solutions:Random Sampling: Ensures that each member of the population has an equal chance of selection, increasing representativeness. Replication in Varied Contexts: Conducting the study across different settings or with diverse samples can strengthen generalizability. Increasing Sample Size: A larger sample can enhance statistical power and representativeness, making findings more applicable to a broader population.

3.3. Discuss how the researcher in the study could avoid bias Threats: Researcher Bias: The researcher’s expectations or beliefs may inadvertently influence data collection or interpretation. Participant Bias: Participants may alter their behavior if they know they are being observed, affecting the validity of findings. Confirmation Bias: The tendency to interpret results in a way that supports the researcher’s hypothesis can distort conclusions. Solutions: Double-Blind Procedure: Neither the participants nor the researchers know the study’s aim or conditions, reducing bias. Standardized Instructions: Ensures that all participants receive the same information, reducing variability due to researcher influence. Use of Objective Measures: Relying on quantitative, measurable data rather than subjective interpretation helps minimize researcher bias.