This discussion is closed.
Jacquie
Badges: 0
#1
Report Thread starter 17 years ago
#1
Hi.
I've left out Question 2 for today - we've not touched on correlational studies yet, but I'm going to read up on them tonight, so I'll have a go at question 2 tomorrow if that's ok?
Anyway, question 3:

(a) Field study. participants were unaware of being in the study.
(b) Female participants show more patterns of friendly interaction towards both Male's and female's than Male participants, although female participants interact more to their own sex whereas male participants interact more to the opposite sex.
(c) Observer bias is the interpretation and observations made by the observer which could involve his/her own schemas.
One way to overcome this problem is to have more than one observer.
(d) One variable could be cultural differences; this could be overcome by repeating the study within other environments.
Another variable could be participant reactivity; the participants could become aware of being observed. This could be overcome by using a hidden video camera.
(e) It doesn't take into account the fact that the study was conducted in a college environment. The particvipants may have known one another; therefore their interaction would be more familiar than it would be in other surroundings.
(f) One ethical issue is informed consent. Yhe participants were not told that they were being observed as part of a study. They may have had private reasons for not wishing to be observed/studied. It also raises concerns as regards the protection of the participants and confidentiality issues.
(N.B.; This was the one that really got me - told you I can't get my head around I. & D.V.):
I.V = Gender
D.V.= Interaction
Hypothesis= males interact with the opposite sex more than with their own sex. (One-tailed)..or:
males interact with the opposite sex differently to how they interact with their own sex. (two-tailed).

HELP!
I was nearly crying when I got to trying to work out the variables. I don't think they're right, but I can't think of anything else!

Look forward to hearing from you Helen. And if there's anyone else out there; take heed: it's much easier to learn & revise when you're in that mode, than taking some years out and starting again!(wish I'd stayed on at school now!*!).
Jacq
0
HelenBrownsell
Badges: 0
#2
Report 17 years ago
#2
Hello again,

a.Field study seems ok to me as they were doing tasks that they normally would in everyday life, in a normal situation and they are unaware that they are being observed. It is also a naturalistic observation as behaviours are observed in the natural environment, all variables are free to alter and interference is kept to a minumum. Either answer is fine.

b. Sounds fine to me!!!!!

c. Yep the observer is influenced by what he expects/wants to see. He may see friendly activities differently to other observers.

The use of several observers is a good idea but make sure that the variables are "operationalised" as then they mark the behaviours on the same criteria.

d. Yes those two examples are fine. You can always look at the demographic characteristics of a person (age, culture, gender etc) to create criticisms as these act as individual differences. Also, things like the length of time he spends observing each person. You cannot observer one female for an hour and a male for 30 mins and draw a conclusion that the female performed more friendly gestures.

e. Yes you cannot say that a study on college students is universal, it only applies to college students.

f. Yes completely right. Also if they are deceived, they cannot give consent to being in the study and also they cannot withdraw until they are told that they have been observed.

IV - gender of the participants (Correct! Youre not bad at this really are you). You could also look at the gender of the companion.

DV - interactions is ok but you could be more specific like the number of friendly gestures (consisting of smiling and touching) that a participant performed.

The hypothesis are fine. Here are another two which may help:

One-tailed hypothesis - Females produce more friendly gestures during an interaction with a companion more than males. The number of gestures are higher when a companion is female rather than male. Key words = more, higher

Two-tailed - gender effects the number of friendly gestures presented during an interaction with a companion. Key word - effect (doesnt say how).

Youre fine with it all. There is always going to be a question whch you may slip up on or have to think about. Dont worry about it. Just take a depth breath and if you cant do it, go back to it later. The variables will probably only be one mark each. Just relax! The more you practice, the better you'll get at it.

Helen Brownsell
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (262)
33.98%
No (509)
66.02%

Watched Threads

View All