People: students (as level, about 30, with the same proportion of males and females. 15 in one group: control group --> no HPL, 15 in another: experimental group - exposed to HPL) -> independent measure design, randomization -> reduce indi differences

Place: classroom (field experiment)

Procedure: observation

Role of conferdarate:

Covert: pretend to be a student in the class

In HPL condition

PPT: studying with students

Structured observation: pretend writing notes but recording the behavior

Role of the main observer:

Covert: observe through a hidden camera

structured: using behavior category according to HPL values

• Empathy: helping others, listening, and understanding others

• hardworking: complete homework, actively respond to questions

• Meta thinking: answer open questions,

• linking: linking the theoretical knowledge to real-life situation

• ...

  Control: manipulate IV(HPL)

  Non -ppt: not engaging in the study

Data analysis:

• quanti: calculate the number of coded behavior in each category (frequency), compared with control condition -> presented in a bar chart

• quali: verbal comments, emotions in class (happy/engaged/bored)

• inter-rater reliability: 2 observers will compare their recording and reach a consensus

Another strength of this study is high standardisation. The researchers used standardised measures such as the Feelings Thermometer before, during and after therapy. At each session, self-report measures were taken of the boy's rating of distress using the Feelings Thermometer which makes the results more reliable and allows replicability for the future study.

One weakness of this study is low generalisability. As the case study focuses on a single 9 year old boy, which is a non-representative sample. This leads to the findings of this study may not be generalisable to wider population of children with phobias, other types of phobias, or individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

Another weakness of this study is ethical concerns. The study could have caused psychological stress as the boy was having to confront his button phobia throughout the therapy. He also had to discuss the potential causes of phobia to the therapist which could be stressful for him, causing him to feel distress and uncomfortable.

Good: Level 5

Another strength of this study is that the study used equipment that has high standardisation. In the study, the boy used the same questionnaire (feeling thermometer) both before and after the treatment to collect data. The feeling thermometer is always a rating scale from 0 to 8, with different conditions of buttons like large or small, plastic or colorful. Since the materials were kept the same, the consistency between trials was kept, making it easy to replicate in future study. So, the study is high in reliability.

One weakness of this study is that the study is low in generalisability. Since case study can focus on only one participant, a 9-years-old Hispanic American boy, this makes the findings of the study extremely hard to apply to people in different demographic, like adult males, female children, or Asians. Since the sample used in this study was unrepresentative, the study is low in generalisability.

Another weakness of this study is that the study is low in ethics. Due to the nature of this study, the boy was observed every day for the entire duration of the study, breaking the "privacy" ethical guideline. Not only so, but gradual exposure therapy also causes him a lot of psychological distress, evident by the feeling thermometer going up after the treatment. This breaks the "protection from harm" guideline. So, the study is low in ethics.

One strength of this study is the use of quantitative and qualitative data. The researcher collected quantitative data by creating a fear thermometer for the boy to rate his distress level (0 - 8) towards types and actions with buttons. The boy ratings were used to compare between periods of gradual exposure and imagery exposure phase to see the effectiveness and how the boy improve over periods. The boy were also interview before study to find out about his trauma, also after the study to ask what he felt about buttons and if he is not scare anymore. His behaviors during the study were also observed and note down to collect qualitative data. By using both quantitative and qualitative data, the researchers can compare easily results of the boy between periods (before - after) , using graphs and find out reasons behind his trauma. This data make the study more valid.

Another strength of this study is standardisation. The boy diagnosed with button phobia was studied over a long period of time using triangulation which include, interview, observation and questionnaire. The researcher also kept feeling thermometer (questionnaire) the same, ensure standardisation for before, during and after therapy. The boy will rate his feeling using thermometer after every session. By using standardised procedure, researcher can make data collecting process consistent, allow similar studies to replicate easily, increase reliability of the study.

One weakness of this study is low generalisability. The study sample focus on 1 boy , a 9 years old Hispanic American boy who is diagnosed with button phobia. This is a very small sample, also the boy is diagnosed with a specific phobia of buttons. This make the sample non representative, as general population or children (older, younger) might show different results. This make the study hard to generalise and apply findings to a wider population of children with different backgrounds.

Another weakness of this study is they broke the protection from harm ethical guideline. The boy have to recalled his experience that caused him button phobia which is when a bowl of buttons fall onto him in class and his friends laugh at him. This might cause him psychological harm. Also, during the treatments, he have to interact with buttons (touching, handing) and imagine buttons using a VR which would cause him psychological harm. By getting exposed to buttons and recalled bad memories, He could get distress and become stressful during treatment. This make the study less ethical and might not get approved from authority. => Level 5

 Another strength of this study is that it collected both quantitative and qualitative data. The rating of feeling disgusted of the boy on the Feeling Thermometer on a scale from 0->8 produced quantitative data which was easy to collect and analyze. The boy and his mom were interviewed about his phobia to collect detailed and in-depth information on the behaviours of the boy. Therefore, the data increase the validity of the study.

 A weakness of this study is low generalisability. In the study, the experimenter used treatment to help a 9-year-old Hispanic American boy who met the criteria for having a specific phobia of buttons. This sample is non-representative for the adults and female population and people who are diagnosed with other phobias. Therefore, the findings are harder to generalise to a wider population.

 Another weakness of this study is that the self-report techniques might be subjective. The experimenter used Feelings Thermometer which was a hierarchy of fear and disgust based on the boy button phobia. The boy rated his feelings by himself so there might be demand characteristics and social desirability bias as the boy might want to appear to be less disgusted by the buttons. Therefore, the results might not be entirely accurate and lower the validity of the study.

Another strength of this study is its use of standardized measures. The experimenter created a 9-point rating scale with a distress rating from 0 to 8, with 0 being no disgust and 8 being very disgusted to measure before, during, and after the therapy. The boy needs to self-report by rating his fear in the thermometer after completing every task to ensure consistentcy. Therefore, this will increase the reliability of this study.

One weakness of this study is the sample. There is just one participant, a 9-year-old Hispanic-American boy who along with his mother had sought support from a Phobia Program at Florida International University, Miami. Therefore, this sample is too small and can't be applied to different sexes, ages, races, or regions people which makes this sample non-representative.

Another weakness of this study is that it is subjective. This is a case study in which the researchers and the participant may known each other too well for a long period such as the researcher knowing the boy incident at school, which can create researcher bias or the boy being aware he was undergoing therapy can cause demand characteristic. Therefore, this will decrease the validity of the study.

Another weakness of this study is in it ethics. Because this is a case study about a boy's phobia, he was constantly exposed to it during the experiment. The treatment was through gradual exposure and imagery exposure and it requires the boy to face his phobia by either interacting with buttons or thinking about it. This in turn can create psychological distress for the participant, making him feel uncomfortable or unpleasant. => gọi tên đúng principle ra, no protection from harm.

One strength of the Saavedra and Silverman study is the collection of quantitative data. In this study, to understand the boy's feeling toward specific types of button, the experimenter created a hierarchy of fear/disgust, which is a nine-point rating scale from 0-8, 0 being least unpleasant and 8 being the most unpleasant the participant feel. This is a strength because using this , they can easily compare how the boy feels for different types of buttons.

Another strength of this study is high standardisation. The researcher used a self-report, which is a feelings thermometer before, during and after the therapy treatment, which was kept the same throughout the study. This is a strength because it makes the study more reliable and allows future studies to replicate it easily. => Phần này how hơi sơ sài.

people: 40 children, 20 girls and 20 boys aged from 3 to 5, recruit from local kindergartens, opportunity

place: local kindergarten, in classroom and in playground during study time

procedure:

informed consent to parents and take confirmations

observation

code data, behavioural categories

Dr Angelo purpose of his study is to investigate how young children respond when their teachers are helpful using an observational study. He can recruit his sample from local kindergarten schools, sample can consist of 20 boys, 20 girls age from 3 - 5 and use opportunity sampling to recruit children from a readily available pool. His study can be a field experiment conduct in school, while children learn in classroom and while they play in playground, weekdays.

After finalising sample and place for the study, Angelo should give informed consent to children's parents to get confirmation. He can use a confederate, his role will be a teacher from another school who join the class to observe and engage with students while Angelo can teach the children and play with them. Angelo use participants and overt observation by taking part of the social setting observe and engage while children doing their tasks. He also use controlled observation by interfere with children environment to influence their behaviour. Angelo can use repeated measure design, allocate children into 2 groups by randomisation, choosing from a name pool. Experimental condition will be group that receive help from teacher and control condition will not. Angelo can use counterbalancing to make one group experience from help to no help and another group will receive in reverse order. Angelo can use structured observation to observe children behaviour using a behavioural categories. Angelo and confederate should wear same formal clothes and give same instructions for every children to keep standardisation. In the classroom, Angelo can give students a drawing task and ask them to do. In the playground, Angelo can let children play puzzle. Categories can include positive, neutral and negative responses. => chuẩn bị sẵn description. Positive responses include actions like saying "Thank You" after receive help, smiling or give eye contact to show happiness or complete task and assisting classmates. Neutral responses can be doing the task without watching teacher, not interacting or watching other students without engaging. Negative responses can be ignore teacher, no participation in tasks, distract other children or talking over teacher. He can note down children verbal comments and emotions to collect further data. Also, Angelo can record the time in minutes to see time children do the task. Angelo can observe with confederate and compare data after to achieve a consensus to increase inter observer reliability. After finish the task, Angelo can give children candies or snacks to reward them after the study and comfort them.

After collected all data, he can count number of time children do the behaviour in the categories to find which gender show more positive or negative actions, also find out if children see teacher being helpful will show more positive response by using numerical scoring to see which group have higher score. He can also use the minutes recorded of children doing task to see if they receive help, their time spent doing task will be longer or they don't receive help, they might feel bored and do the task faster. Angelo can use qualitative data collected from observe children verbal comments and emotions to study in depth about their feelings and find the reason behind their repsoses towards helpful act from teacher.

a) one weakness of this study is low generalizability, the sample consist of only children age 3 - 5 from local kindergarten. They might share similar characteristics and cannot be generalise and apply to wider population of younger, older children or children from another school. To overcome this problem, the sample can be recruited from wider range of schools, wider range of age and recruit a bigger sample size.

IV: heping them in a test,...

DV: children respond: smile,... 

P: Opportunity sampling 

• 100 (50M, 50F)

• consent form for parrent 

P: lab - same setting with the classroom 

P: unstructured, covert (confederate) and overt (experimenter), participant (confederate) and non-particpant (experimenter), control 

Dr. Angelo aims to investigate how children respond when their teachers are helpful through an observational study. To operationalize the DV, children's responses can refer to positive and negative emotions and interactions with the teacher (e.g., smiling, hugging the teacher). Meanwhile, "teachers being helpful" can be operationalized as actions of directly or indirectly assisting children, such as helping them solve a math puzzle or helping a child stand up after falling. Dr. Angelo can recruit 60 children aged 5-9 years old (older than 9 years old will not see distinctive behavior as they are mature and can do work by themselves), with 30 males and 30 females to reduce sex differences. Opportunity sampling can be used to recruit participants from pre-kindergarten and elementary classes in two private and three public schools in the nearby area. The study’s aim will be fully briefed to parents or guardians, and they will be given a consent form. All children participating in this study must be physically and mentally healthy (docile, with little to no aggressive behavior), which will be rated by their current teachers. The experiment will be conducted in a laboratory environment where external factors like noise and distractions from other people are minimized. The laboratory will be set up to similar to a normal classroom to ensure participants feel comfortable.

The experimental design of this study is an independent measures design, with each participant going through only one level of the IV. The IV is divided into two conditions: the "helpful behavior" condition and the "non-helpful behavior" condition. Each condition will have 30 participants (15 males and 15 females). For both conditions, participants will take a test consisting of 25 questions, with increasing difficulty after each question. Before the study, they will be told: “The result of this test does not reflect your knowledge or count toward any school curriculum score. You may leave the test immediately if you feel unwell.” This study uses controlled observation by setting up an artificial situation (a teacher helping their student). Dr. Angelo will use structured observation to record both positive and negative responses. Before the study, behavior categories will be established for two conditions:

• Positive behaviors (e.g., smiling, hugging the teacher, kissing on the face)

• Negative behaviors (e.g., throwing a pen, showing frustration)

For both conditions, two covert observers will watch the children's behavior through CCTV and take notes. After each condition, they will reach a consensus. Each observation will last for 15 minutes. For the helpful condition, a confederate will act as a teacher, taking on the role of both an overt and participant observer. During the test, the confederate will ask multiple questions like “Do you need any help?” or “Is the question difficult?” After five minutes of test-taking, the teacher will approach each participant’s desk and assist them. After helping, they will record the children's facial expressions. For the non-helpful condition, the confederate will sit at the front of the room for the entire duration of the test. They will not answer any questions from the students but will observe and note the children's behaviors. After the study, all participants will be rewarded with a pack of snacks and a toy.

For data analysis, any children who do not display any behavior will be excluded from the analysis. Quantitative data from external behaviors recorded by the experimenters will be used to calculate the percentage difference between children in the helpful and non-helpful conditions. In addition, the data will be used to analyze whether there is gender difference affect the response of the children For qualitative data, such as facial expressions, will be used to support the conclusion regarding whether teachers being helpful results in positive responses from children.

OK.

During the study, two teachers in the experimental condition would show positive behaviors towards the children, such as showing children how to play with toys, introducing children to play with others, playing with children, listening to children’s thoughts,... The observation would be structured observation which has behavioural categories including positive behaviors (playing with toys correctly, playing with other children and/or confederate, expressing their feelings and thoughts freely,...) neutral behaviors (brief contact with toys, brief playing or contact with other children, be more quiet,...), and negative behaviors (throwing toys, refuse to play with other children, crying and shouting,...). => thử describe các categories nhé. In addition, children’s verbal remarks would also be recorded by confederates. The observation would also be covert and participant, the children would be unaware that they are being observed by the confederates, and the confederates join into the social setting. Due to the use of confederates, this is a controlled observation. 

Dr Angelo should analyse both quantitative and qualitative data after the study. For quantitative data, it would be from the behavioral categories. Dr Angelo should create a bar chart for each condition, calculating the mean frequency of the behaviors in each category and make comparisons between the two conditions. For example, the bar charts showing that the average positive behavior category of experimental condition is higher than control condition means that the teachers being helpful can positively affect children’s behavior. For qualitative data (children’s verbal remarks), the researchers can use it to analyse further reasons behind children’s behavior, such as their mood, their relationship with other children,... that can affect their behaviors other than teacher’s helpfulness. Therefore, using this way of procedure and data analysis, Dr Angelo can collect data regarding children’s behavior when teachers are helpful.

=> Ko dùng sai terminology, ko dùng sai checklist với categories.

____________

One weakness of the study is low internal validity due to individual differences: some children are already friendly, while some others are a bit aggressive or quiet, which might be the factor that is causing change between the experimental and control condition, rather than the presence of the helpful teachers. Therefore, the effects of IV (helpful teachers or not) on DV (children’s behavior) are not very clear. To overcome this weakness, randomisation should be used to randomly allocate children to two groups.

People: 

• children in the age of 6-8, recruited from a primary school

• Volunteer: sending emails to parents/ guardians → reply and give fully informed consent

Place: classroom

Procedure

• Use conferderate: teachers teaching are conferderate → covert and participant + helpful

• Main

• Structured: behavioural categories

• Positive behaviours

• Negative

• Solitary

• Covert; camera

• Controlled

• Non part

Dr Angelo’s study investigated the behaviours of children when their teachers are helpful. This research is conducted using the technique of observation for the most comprehensive data collection. 

Regarding the sample, around 40 children from the age 6-8 from a primary school will be recruited with the same percentage of males and females. Angelo can use volunteer sampling to employs these participants so that the children are more committed when completing the study. The researchers can send emails to the children’s parents or guardians to announce about the research. Any parents willing to send their children to the research can reply to the emails and will be given a fully informed consent on the study’s purposes and tasks. 

The research will be taken place at a real classroom, which means the study used field experiments to prevent the children from altering their original behaviours. Angelo should also recruit a confederate to help him with the observation. The confederate will be the teacher who directly interacts with the children during the research. He has to be an empathetic, understanding, supportive and helpful teacher who is active in solving children’s problems. During the research, this confederate will observe and engage in children’s activities such as teamwork or assignments and then record any verbal comments or interactions shown. Thus, the confederate is a covert and participant observer. During the study, it is important that the ‘teacher’ does not cause any stress or forced children to complete any task/test or assignment if the children feel uncomfortable and refuse to do. 

Regarding Angelo, he should use structured observations with behavioural categories being prepared. This helped him to record all critical demeanors without dismissing any. The behavioural categories should comprise of at least 3 categories. For example:

• Positive behaviours: actively listening and responding to a question, completing class work, working effectively with other students, etc

• Negative behaviours: easily distracted, doing personal work rather than listening to the teacher, talking and not paying attention, etc

• Neutral behaviour: listening but not responding, sitting still, not engaging in activities, etc

=> luyện describes categories.

The observation should also be covert, as Angelo will observe the children via a hidden camera. This minimises children from altering their behaviours, such as becoming more docile as they acknowledge they are being watched. He is also a non-participant observer as he did not engage in the class’s activities, thus able to focus more on recording more data. As the research controlled IV (which is a helpful teacher), the observation is controlled. 

Regarding data analysis, two observers should discuss about their recording of behaviours and reach a consensus, enhancing inter-rater reliability. Regarding quantitative data, the researchers could calculate the mean and frequency of each behaviour shown and present this in a bar chart for any comparisons. This helps the researchers to see if a helpful teacher triggers more positive or negative responses. For qualitative data, the experimenters could look for a theme in which verbal comments are elicited by children. This shows the emotions and further reasons for a recorded behaviours shown such as the topics related to class or simply their talking of other topics outside the lecture. 

One weakness: 

• The study has low generalizability. This is because all participants are recruited from the same school and their age range is also restricted. Thus, the findings might not be able to represent other children of different ages and different living conditions or educational backgrounds

Solution

• The research should attempt to recruit participants from diverse backgrounds. For example, the researchers should recruit participants from different schools, different regions, with different ages such as in both primary and secondary school

People:

-          50 children from 3-5 years old

-          Opportunities sampling

Place: kintergarden, during school hour, breaktime

Procedure

-          Inform consent for children’s gaurdians/parents before conducting

-          2 observers

-          Covert: through video cameras (set 2 in classroom, 2 in playground)

-          Non-participants (avoid making students feeling fear of strangers)

-          Controlled: ask teachers teach same lesson content to all students

-          Unstructured: could record all behaviours of students

Anlalyze

-          2 observers => make consensus

-          Encode behaviour and make a table to categorize behaviours to see the number

+ positive behaviour

Negative behaviour

-          Quali: gesture, verbal comments such as thank you…

This study aim to investigate the behaviour of children when their teacher are helpful by using observation. the IV of the study s teacher’s helping behaviour in either playground or classroom, while the DV is children’s interactions. The sample will consitst of 50 kintergarden students, from 3-5 years old, including 25 boys and 25 girls. In order to collect the sample, Angelo would use opportunity sampling by going to the kintergardent to introduce children about the study, then tell them to ask their parents for permission to join. The experiment takes place in a kintergarden, during schoolhour and breaktime. Independent measure design is used to allocate participants to have teacher’s helpful behaviour by using radomisation to set them in either classroom or classroom conditions. Before the study starts, experimenter must give informed consent to students’ parents or guardians.

The study will include Angelo and a conferderate. They would use video camera and Angelo would sitting behind to take note. The conferderate will be a covert observer, acting as a teacher and having a class project for students to do in school. It would be done in classroom or playground for each conditions. This project could involve students to ask teacher for help. This observation would also be participant and controlled. When the students doing the project, the conferderate would wear teacher uniform and have a pre-planned conversation with the participants so he would ask the same questions to all children, such as “Do you need any helps?”, “Anything wrong about . He would observe the interractions of students after helping them, including their behaviours, verbals comments and gestures. The oberservation would be structured as researcher makes a behavioural categories to encode each participants’ responses in. this includes “positive behaviour”, such as smiling, hand-shaking, clapping,… and negative behaviours, such as interact aggressively, yelling,…

For analysis, two observers would discuss about their recording will analyze and compare each other records then make a consensus, which enhance inter-rater realibility. Regarding quantitative data, this will use to analyze from the behaviroual categories. It will be shown in a table to see the percentage of behaviour frequency each condition and make comparison. This will see whether a helful teacher would result in a positive or negative behaviour. For qualitative data, researcher could use vermal comments, and gestures to further investigate the reasons behind that affect their behaviours.

One weakness of this study is low generalizabilty, as the sample is non-representative. In this study, the participants are recruited from a kintergarden. Thus, participants may share same background and similar characteristic, which is hardly to generalize to wider population. Children in other cultures or areas may have different behaviour when having a helpful teacher. Hence this will lower the generalizability of the study.

P: field experiment ( the classroom)

P: 50 randomly picked children from a public kindergarten, age 4-5

P: 

Controlled observation: 

situation where students would need the help from the teacher (helping with a difficult craft project - in the classroom,)

Individually children are told the project will get a reward 

Each child get help from their teacher for 5 minutes and then observed for another 5 minutes, each observed individually 

If the project is not completed children are told they can finish it another day

Structured: behavior checklist of the participants (positive/negative emotions, actions)

Covert observation by using cameras, non participants 

Data analysis

Quantitative data, 

IV: help from teacher

DV: behaviour

Bar graph 

To collect the data for an investigation of children's behaviour when their teachers are helpful, Dr Angelo can conduct a controlled observation held in a classroom. A field experiment that is held in a normal environment to the participants, which helps ensure the ecological validity of the study. For the sample, Dr Angelo can pick out 25 girls/boys (50 in total) from the nearest public kindergarten by using opportunity sampling, a convenient time saving method; participants' ages are between 3-6 years old.

To begin the procedure, parents of the participants would be given an informed consent to sign and a short questionnaire about their child’s preference in toys. With that, each participant will go through the experiment once individually. The procedure consists of, situation where participants are told to make a crafting project and that they will be rewarded. They’ll then be brought to a classroom with art supplies that are purposely messed with to ensure that participants will be needing the teacher’s assistance, this is to ensure the effects of IV onto DV increasing internal validity. In the room will also be a teacher that the participants are comfortable with. Participants will be observed through a camera for 15 minutes while making the project, covert observation would help the behaviour of the participants be more realistic, have mundane realism and avoid the risk of social desirability. At the first sign of struggle (asking for help, using the broken supply) the teacher will help the participants until the problem is resolved.

After 15 minutes if the participant had not completed their project, they will be told to finish it another day and if they had finished they will be rewarded with the preferred toys. All participants will be observed with a behavioral checklist with two categories such as, positive and negative behaviour. Positive behaviour would include behaviour such as, ‘smiling, eyes widening, increase in enthusiasm, optimistic tone of voice, good posture’. Whereas negative behaviour would be, ‘frowning, lower in posture, sad expressions, discouragement towards the project’. And any verbal remarks will be noted down as well 

For data analysis, with the checklist being quantitative data that can be allocated onto a bar graph and verbal remarks are qualitative data that could help further explain the results. The bar graph helps determine whether the children’s behaviour when their teachers are being helpful is positive or not , by comparing the number of the positive behaviour on the x axis to the negative behaviour on the x axis, to see which is higher on the y axis. The participants who showed no sign of struggle and didn’t ask for help from the teacher will be replaced. With the analysis above Dr Angelo can then draw a conclusion on the children’s behaviour when their teachers are being helpful.

One weakness of this study is low generalizability, because the study used opportunity sampling at the nearest kindergarten, which causes the sample to have similarities in characteristics such as education, environment, experience and being in one area. Make it hard to generalize with a larger group of background, education, characteristics and groups from different areas.

Another strength of the study is high standardisation. This study use controlled observation, which it use the same behavioral checklist to record the behaviors that were recorded to be learned by the elephants. Moreover, the SPR training steps was the same for all ppts using techniques such as lure, capture and shaping, and all elephants were rewarded with the same reward of a chopped banana. This allow the data-collecting process stays consistent between trials, make it easy to replicate in the future, and therefore incease the reliability of the study. => good

A weakness of the study is lack of generalisability. The sample size is very small of only 5 elephants (4 juveniles and 1 adult), and all were females. So this sample is very small and gender biased, which make the results more difficult to generalized to male or older elephants. Moreover, they were all captive elephants, from the same stable, so they might share similar characteristics such as similar personalities. Therefore, they are not representative of a wider population of elephants, such as those in the wild, and therefore, the findings cannot be applied to a wider population, as elephants in the wild with different exposure may have displayed different results to the elephants that were used in the study in terms of their learning time. => ok

Another weakness of the study is low validity. The measurement of the elephant’s performance test were subjective. To pass a test, the behavioral responses need to meet sufficient quality to function in a trunk wash which was subjectively determined by the trainer. The trainer could not ensure that they use the exact same criterion for every single behavioral response made by each elephant, so the data-collecting process might not the same for all elephants in the study. => Phần này mình cần nói rõ là subjective vì trainer cũng không thực sự tìm hiểu về việc lý do tại sao voi không làm được,...

Another weakness of the study is low validity. The measurement of the elephant’s performance test was subjective. To pass a test, the behavioral responses needed to meet sufficient quality to function in a trunk wash, which was subjectively determined by the trainer. However, the trainer did not explore the reasons behind why an elephant failed to perform a behavior—whether it was due to misunderstanding, fear, distraction, or other factors. As a result, the trainer might not have used the exact same criteria for every behavioral response made by each elephant, making the data-collecting process inconsistent across the study.

Level 4

Another strength of this study is high ecological validity. This is because the experiment was a field experiment that occurred in the elephant's natural environment, allowing mahouts to train in their familiar settings. The behaviors and responses of elephants are therefore more likely to reflect their natural reactions. This leads to higher ecological validity of the study.

One weakness of this study is low generalisability. The study only included 4 juvenile elephants aged 5-7 years and one adult elephant in her 50s so this small sample size raises concerns about the generalisability of the results to a wider elephant population. The findings may not be applicable to male elephants, older elephants, or elephants from different regions.

Another weakness of this study is low level of controls. The training took place in an environment with potential distractions, such as the presence of tourists, other animals, and the proximity to meal times. These uncontrolled variables could have affected the elephant's focus and learning, potentially influencing the results.

=> Ok

ANother strength of this study is the use of quantitative data. Researchers collect quantitative data by count number of sessions that take elephants to complete trunk wash task. They also record the time taken for sessions of elephants and calculate the mean time for every sessions. Researcher also add up the total time taken for sessions. This is to help compare performance of elephants, who got the lowest time would be considered learning the fastest. By collecting quantitative data, researchers can compare easily the performance of elephants, also data are objective and it increase the study validity. => good

One weakness of this study is low generalizability. The sample is small, only consist of 5 female elephants, 4 juveniles age from 5-7 and 1 adult elephants in her 50s. All elephants are from a stable in Nepal and currently not pregnant. This make sample non representative. Other elephants in other area rather than Nepal would have different behaviours. Also, elephants who are male, different ages and pregnant elephants would produce different results. This make study hard to generalise and apply findings to a wider population of elephants from other countries and different gender, age.

Another weakness of this study is low control over variables. This is a field experiment, elephants were train in nature settings, where there are many extraneous variables that affect their performance. There might be loud noises, intense sun light or might be other animals in the jungle distract the elephants. This make elephants behaviours and performance change due to extraneous variables and not from SPR learning. => ok

level 5

 Another strength of this study is that it followed ethical guidelines for animal welfare. The elephants were allowed to graze in the jungle for most of the day, they were fed daily and had access to water when grazing. In addition, the elephants were rewarded with chopped bananas when they were training. The elephants were not harmed during the study which makes it very ethical, therefore the study can be approved by the public and further research can replicate the study to compare the findings.

 A weakness of this study is that it has a low level of controls. The study was conducted in the elephant’s natural environment so there might be some extraneous variables affecting their ability to focus on the training such as the presence of tourists or other animals in the area. For example, the adult elephant was distracted by another elephant which can affect the results of her success rate. Therefore, this lowers the validity of the findings of this study.

 Another weakness of this study is that it has low generalisability. The sample only included 4 juvenile and 1 adult elephants, all were female and they lived in a stable in Nepal. This sample is non-representative as the findings are hard to apply to male elephants, elephants with a wider range of age and the one who lived in other regions. In addition, the findings are hard to apply to other species of animal because only 1 type of elephant was used in the study. 

OK. level 5

A difference between Fagen and Bandura is Fagen et al. conducted naturalistic observations of elephants in their natural habitats which is at their stable and there were no presence of mahouts. => có presence mà This allow researcher to capture authentic behaviors but with less experimental control. In contrast, Bandura et al. performed controlled laboratory experiments with children, as the toys that the children played were controlled by the experimenter, and also the use of aggressive and non-aggressive model. This allow reseacher to control and manipulate the variables in an artificial environment.

A similarity between Fagen and Bandura is both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used controlled observation as part of their data collection techniques. This means that specific behaviours could be operationalised to improve validity. In Fagen et al., trainers observed whether elephants correctly performed defined behaviors and record based on behavioral categories such as “trunk here” means elephant places end of trunk in trainer’s hand. Similarly, in Bandura et al., children were observed through a one-way mirror and their behavior was recorded using a standardized behavioral checklist, such as “aggressive gun play” means striking objects other than the Bobo doll aggressively with the mallet. This structured approach in both studies helped ensure consistent and measurable data across participants.

A difference between Fagen and Bandura is Fagen et al. conducted naturalistic observations of elephants in their natural habitats which is at their stable.This allow researcher to capture authentic behaviors but with less experimental control. In contrast, Bandura et al. performed controlled laboratory experiments with children, as the toys that the children played were controlled by the experimenter, and also the use of aggressive and non-aggressive model. This allow reseacher to control and manipulate the variables in an artificial environment.

Good

Another strength of this study is that it has high ethics. In the study, the elephants were rewarded with chopped bananas when they finish a behavior. There were only 5 elephants in the study, so the number of participants were kept at the minimum. This shows that they followed the "reward, deprivation & adverse stimuli" guideline, as well as the "number of participants" guideline. Therefore, the study is high in ethics.

One weakness of this study is that the sample is unrepresentative. In the study, they only used female elephants with docile manner, and all of them had been trained using traditional methods. So, the findings of the study might not be appliable to male elephants, or to elephants who had never been through traditional training methods. Therefore, the study is low in generalisability.

Another weakness of this study is that the study was not conducted in a lab and is subjected to many extraneous variables. In the study, during one of elephant 5's training session, a young elephant came into the test area and steal the reward bucket. This could cause the training time of the elephants to extend, affecting the validity of the study. => OK

Another weakness of this study is that extraneous variables can affect the result. Because this is conducted in a field environment, extraneous variables cannot be fully controlled which can distract the elephants. The presence of tourist, other elephants, manhout during the training session might have affected the elephant's concentration and their willingness to participate in the study. This in turn can lower the reliability of the results.

One strength of the Fagen et al study is the collecting of quantitative data. During the experiment, number of session each elephant takes to complete the training and the mean % correct for all task. Using this, they found out that juvenile elephants were more successful during the training compared with the adult one. This is a strength because the results can be used to compare the data between elephants in the study to measure the successfulness of using SPR (Secondary positive reinforcement).

Another strength of this study is high standardization. This study used controlled observation, it used the same behavioral checklist to record the elephant's behaviors. Different steps of the training such as Trunk here, Trunk up, Bucket, Blow, Steady was used on all elephants. This means that the study's can easily be replicated by future studies and increases the study's reliability.

Good.

Another strength of this study is ethical guidelines. During the session, the elephants could choose not to engage by walking away or turning from the trainer which ensures that elephants have the right to withdraw. Also they graze freely for a large time of the day, were fed adequately and were able to socialise with other elephants in the jungle, which ensured great housing conditions for them. Therefore, this study could be approved by authorities and can be used as a lead example of preventing ethical issues for future research.

One weakness of this study is  low generalisability. There were just 5 elephants which were all female ( 4 juveniles and one adult) in Nepal. The sample of this study was too small, also there is gender bias when there are not any male elephants being investigated. Another problem of this sample is aged bias, in which the numbers of juvenile elephants outweigh the number of adult elephants. Therefore, the sample of this study can’t represent a larger population with male elephants and more adult elephants than juveniles.

Another weakness of this study is the low level of control. By using field experiments, extraneous variables such as light, sound and temperature can directly affect the elephant’s performance, Also tourists and other elephants' presence during the sessions might have affected the elephant’s concentration or willingness to participate which may cause distractions. Because the hardness controls this variable, the study can have lower validity.

good

One difference between these two studies is it main method. The main method for the Fagen et al study is observation. By observing the elephants behaviors, the experimenter can measure the successfulness of using SPR on training. Through this, they also found out that juvenile elephants can learn through SPR better than the adult elephant .The main method for the Saavadra and Silverman study is case study. The means that they focuses on only one participant, which is the 9 years old Hispanic-American boy who were diagnosed with button phobia. Through this, they can develop and use different treatments to help curing the boy's phobia.

OK

One difference of Fagen and Bandura et al is the use of type of experiment. In Fagen et al, it used field experiment that occurred in the elephant's natural environment. This way the elephant's behavior would be valid due to their familiarity of the surroundings which the results would also be valid. However in Bandura et al, it used laboratory experiment that occurred in the controlled environment where the children were guided into different room with different toys. This way would make the behaviors of children are controlled by the researchers and higher the level of control in this study => sao lại reliability ở đây, dễ dàng control,...

One difference between Fagen and Bandura is they use different type of experiment. Fagen conduct the study in a field setting, natural jungle in Nepal. Elephants will live outdoor, they get feed and chained in stables. Elephants can spend time in jungle and interact with other animals. Elephants eat grass and have access to water of a nearby river. By using field experiment, Fagen can ensure elephants life is close to their nature life and their condition are good. Bandura conduct the study in a lab setting, in controlled room with experimenter observe. Children will go to a lab and do sessions in 3 room. Room 1, 2 and 3 will have toys in fixed order and same sets of toys. There will be experimenter using one way mirror to observe children while they play. By conduct study in a lab setting, Bandura can control extraneuos variables that potentially affect children behaviours like loud noises or intense lightning or maybe some unrelated people that affect them while they playing. This make IV which are model( aggressive/ non aggressive) and model (present/absent) affect directly DV (children behaviour) and increase internal validity. => Cần rõ IV với DV là gì?

Difference: The study by Fagen and the Bandura study were conducted in different settings. The Fagen study was conducted in the elephants’ natural environment while the Bandura study was conducted in an artificial environment. In Fagen et al, the elephants were allowed to graze in the jungle and they were free to move around when being leg-chained to a stake. In the Bandura study, the children were taken to a room with toys set up by the experimenter, the setting was intervened and this was not the usual environment for them. Therefore, there was mundane realism in Fagen et al while the Bandura study lack mundane realism. => ok

One difference between Fagen et al. and Bandura et al. is that they used different main research method. Fagen et al. used observation as the main research method, where there's no clear IV, and only collected the DV (Duration of sessions in minutes). While in Bandura et al., the main method listed was experimental => experiment, where the IV (sex of model, sex of participants, type of model) and the DV (number of aggressive behaviors) was clearly defined. => OK

One difference between the Fagen et al. study and Saavedra and Silverman study is the Saavedra and Silverman. study collecting both quantitative and qualitative data whereas the Fagen et al.study collected just quantitative data. In the button phobia study, quantitative data being collected include the rating distress of the boy on the Feelings Thermometer and the qualitative being collected such as the background story of the boy by using interview. Whereas in the  Fagen et al. study, quantitative data including the numbers of course it takes for the elephants to complete the full trunk wash test are collected but there is no evidence that show that qualitative data are being collected.

Another strength of this study is high internal validity. The study have high control over extraneous variables. When participants administered either OT or placebo solution, the technique used was double blind. This is to make sure that participants and researchers didn't know which solution participants consume. This reduce researcher bias and reduce chance of demand characteristics. Also, After doing the IRI questions, participants wait in a quiet room for 45 minutes with no interactions with other people. They also given a nature magazine to read which have no information related to people. This is to make sure the OT level of participants remain the same and does not get affect by extraneous variables. By having strict control over effect on OT level of participants, Perry can ensure that IV (high/low empathy) can affect directly DV in participants preferences of chairs and table & plant. There will be no variables that confuse the researcher and hide the effect of different between level of IV. this make the study have high validity.

One weakness of this study is low generalizability. the sample consist of 54 males undergraduate from University of Haifa age 19-32. All participants join for course credit and payments and they are all males. They also have normal vision and no history of psyatric and neurological disorder. 5 participants were left handed. All of them come from the same university plus they share many similar characteristics such as same purpose to join for course credit, normal vision and no psyatric, neurological disorder. Male participants could also show different results to female participants. This sample is non representative. Therefore the findings and sample of this study is hard to apply and generalise to a wider population of females, males with different age and people from another school and have different characteristics.

ANother weakness of this study is low ecological validity. The study conducted in a artificial environment, which is a lab in Haifa university. In task 1 where participants have to choose their preferred personal space with figures. The figures are all imaginary and displayed on computers which is different to normal life. This couldn't show the exact preferences as the participants only judge their preference using displayed figures images and respond by pressing the spacebar. Also, in task 2, rooms were shown in fixed order and only chairs, table and plants change location. By choosing preferences from pictures of chairs, table and plants distance, angle, it is very hard for participants to imagine similar setting in real life. Therefore the task lack mundane realism. The study findings will be hard to apply to some real life situations.

Good => LV 5

Another strength of the study is the use of quantitative data. For example, the percentage of remaining distance from the total distance was recorded in experiment 1, showing that oxytocin decreased the preferred mean distance from a protagonist in the high-empathy group (placebo - 26.11% vs oxytocin - 23.29) and increased it in the low-empathy group (placebo - 26.98% vs oxytocin 30.20%). = The data collected allows researchers to easily compare between groups and between trials. Also, quantitative data is clear and objective numerical data, which helps to increase the validity of the study. => OK

One weakness of this study is low ecological validity. In perry et al study, both exp1 and 2 required ppts to perform on computers. ppts will need to choose the distance between themselves and other figures that they feel comfortable with based on their intuitive feelings. In real-life situations, people's choices about personal space are influenced by complex cues from others such as facial expressions, tone of voice, or gestures of the figure, plus their personal judgments about it. Therefore, this experiment is not realistic to real life, so this study lacks mundane realism and the results of the study will not be applicable to other situations

Another weakness of the study is that the sample size is relatively small with only 54 participants who were all male with aged 19-32 years. So the results might be non-representative to females and to people younger or older than the age range. Moreover, ppts are all undergraduates from the same University of Haifa, so they might share some similar characteristics. Therefore, the findings cannot be applied to individuals outside this university or who have graduated. The effects of oxytocin may vary on them, so the results might be hard to applied to wider population.

Good. Level 5

Another strength of this study is high reliability. The computer program projected the images of the room in the experiment 2 for a consistent 2 seconds each time. This shows that it was conducted in a lab with highly standardised procedure. Likewise, the images were computer generated for accuracy and consistency so it ensured the results were reliable and the procedures could be replicated and expected to produce the same results. => Good

One weakness of this study is low ecological validity as the controlled lab setting may not accurately reflect real-world social interactions. Participants' responses to empathy tasks in artificial environment might differ from how they express empathy in everyday situations. This is because they were asked to judge their preferred distances using computer generated and respond using keyboards. This affects the applicability of the findings as the study's results may not fully generalise to natural social behavior. => Phần này nói thêm về việc ngoài đời sống, chúng ta sẽ không lựa chọn khoảng cách chỉ dựa vào tưởng tượng mà còn vì facial expression, voice tone, body language,...

Another weakness is low generalisability as the sample may not have been diverse enough to represent the broader population because it's just 54 males with aged from 19-32 years. Also, there's gender bias as no female participated in this study so the results cannot be compared and represented to the population. Therefore, this shows that the sample is not representative and the conclusions may not be extended to different types of individuals widely. => OK

 Another strength of this study is it produced quantitative data which was objective. In experiment 1, the preferred distance for each condition was recorded by the computer so the data was measured more accurately. In experiment 2, the preferred distances between the chairs and between the table and plant were collected. => con viết như thế này không thể hiện rõ là quanti, dùng những từ như count, mean,... This allowed experimenters to make direct comparisons between low and high empathy groups and the preferred distance for each condition. Quantitative data is easy to analyse therefore increases the validity of the study.

 A weakness of this study is low generalisability. The sample of this study included 54 male undergraduates from University of Haifa which makes the findings hard to apply to both gender and people from other regions. In addition, all participants had normal vision and no psychiatric disorders so findings are hard to generalise to people with vision impairment and disorders. The sample was non-representative therefore the findings are difficult to apply to a wider population. => OK

Another weakness of this study is low ecological validity. The participants were doing the experiments in an artificial environment of a university. The stooge was presented on the computer screen so the preferred distance between the conditions might be different in real life situations where people are approaching participants. Participants might have different choices of personal space in real life because they can be influenced by social cues like facial expressions and body language. Therefore, this study lacks mundane realism and has low ecological validity. => hard to apply to other situations.

8-9/10

Another strength of this study is that the study was conducted in a lab, so extraneous variables were reduced. In the study, after the participants administered the placebo or oxytocin, they were instructed to wait in a quiet room with nature magazines for 45 minutes for the oxytocin to reach a plateau level. During this time, the experimenter made sure that nothing would affects the participants' natural level of oxytocin (eg. another person talking to them would increase the participant's oxytocin level). This would help the IV (placebo or oxytocin) to directly affects the DV (comfortable distance to other objects), so the study is high in internal validity.

One weakness of this study is that the study used an unrepresentative sample. The study used 40 male participants; all were undergraduates from Haifa university. The age range was 19 to 32 years old, and 5 of them were left-handed. This makes the findings of the study harder to apply to women, children, elders, and left-handed people. So, the study is low in generalisability.

Another weakness of this study is that the study used independent measure design. In the study, participants with the IRI score of over 40 would be put into the "high empathy" condition, and participants with the IRI score of under 40 would be put into the "low empathy" condition. Each participant would only be in either "low empathy" or "high empathy" condition. This makes the results of the study susceptible to individual differences. Maybe some participants have personal preference of how close they wish other people to be from them that does not relates to their level of empathy. So, the study is low in validity. => ý này ko ổn lắm, nên thay bằng low eco vì rõ ràng ko thể bắt 1 ng high chuyển sang low được.

Another strength of this study is the collection of quantitative data. In the experiment 1, the preferred distance of the participants for different figures were recorded. The distance that they preferred will be turned into a percentage-score, the further the figure were away, the higher the score, the closer the figure were away from the participants, the lower the score. Using this, they found out that the interpersonal space of participants were closest for a friend and the furthest for a stranger. In the experiment 2, they wanted to investigate the preferred distance and angle for chairs of participants during a conversation about personal information. The distance between the chairs and their angles were recorded. This is a strength because after the study, the data can be used to compare and analyze between experiment 1 and 2 (sao lại so cái 1 và 2, so sánh giữa các ppts và kết quả tổng quan chứ) to see the effect of oxytocin on people with high and low empathy.

One weakness of the Perry et al study is low ecological validity. The experiment 1 was conducted through computer-generated images, by showing different figures approaching the participants and for them to response using a keyboard. In real life, our preference of interpersonal space between different figures can be influenced by their facial expression, gesture, voice, which were not shown in this study. This showed that the study lacks mundane realism and has low ecological validity. => OK

Another weakness of this study is low generalizability, The sample consisted of 54 male participants, all were undergraduate from the University of Haifa, these people age were between 19-32 years old. Out of 54 participants, 5 were left-handed and the rest were right-handed, they all have normal vision and no history of psychiatric and neurological disorder. All participants came from the same university, which indicated that they might have the same characteristics. All participants were male so the sample cannot represent the female population, the uneven number of people who were left and right handed indicated that people who were left handed cannot be fully represented. This showed that the sample of the Perry et al study were non-representative and cannot represent a larger population of people. => OK

Level 4

 Another strength of this study is the highly standardised procedure. The two tasks in this study both used computer programs in which the images of the room in experiment 2 were to represent a consistent 2 seconds each time. Moreover, the images of this study were computed generated which will maximise the accuracy of the task. Furthermore, all participants respond to their choice using a keyboard. => Phần này chưa rõ ràng về việc same gì, same materials,... Therefore, this could increase the reliability of the study in which the procedure could be repeated and expected to produce the same results.

 One weakness of this study was low generalisability. The sample of this study contains 54 male participants who are all undergraduates from the university of Haifa and have the age of 19-32 years old. This can create gender bias when the sample can't be applied to the population with females, and it can’t represent the other ages like children or old peoples. Furthermore, it can also not apply to undergraduate students from other regions or countries. Therefore the sample of this study is highly non representative.

 Another weakness of this study is low ecological validity. This study was conducted in a laboratory setting in the university of Haifa which may not be the participant's normal environment. Also, they were judging the distance using computed-generated images and responding using the keyboard which may not be similar to the choosing of interpersonal space in real-life situations.  Moreover, the decision of choosing interpersonal space in real life with individuals who they actually know or strangers is not the same. Therefore, by can’t make this study similar to real-life situations, this makes the study lack mundane realism. => OK

Level 4

This study control extraneous variables by using standardisation and conduct the study in a lab setting. IV is either woken in REM or nREM and DV is particiaptns dream. Experimenter give the same instruction to every participants to not consume any alcohol and caffeine to avoid it effects to their sleep, their sleep stages might become different due to alcolhol and caffeine. Participants also sleep in a dark, quiet room so that there will be no extraneous variables such as noise, lights that would affect their sleep quality. Participants will be woken up at various time during the night by a same loud doorbell, loud enough to wake them up immediately so that they wouldn't change to another sleep stage (REM/nREM). Also, after interview participants and participants describe dream into recorder, experimenter will have no further communication with participants, this is to not make participants wake upand affect their sleep stage.

The researchers also used standardisation to make the procedure consistent for all participants. All participants were studied in a controlled sleep laboratory under the same conditions, including going to bed at similar times. They were woken by using a doorbell and asked the same questions about their dreams immediately after waking. Brain activity was measured objectively using an EEG , which could potentially reduced researcher bias. (IV và DV vào đây)

One way to control the study is to keep the equipment standardized for each ppt. The IV in this study is whether ppts are woken in REM or nREM stage, and DV is whether ppt recall dream or not. Researchers used an EEG machine to measure brain wave patterns and accurately identify REM and nREM stages, then they woke ppts up immediately with a loud doorbell to ensure ppts were woken up precisely at the intended sleep stage (REM or nREM). This could ensure that IV affects DV directly, as ppt are woken exactly at the intended stage and therefore researchers could identify whether dream recall occurs in REM or nREM sleep.

Another way to control the study is to reduce the extraneous variables. Ppts were also asked to eat normally and avoid alcohol and caffeine, and they sleep in a quiet, dark room to control for extraneous factors like noise and light to prevent these substances from affecting their sleep patterns, affecting the results. By reducing the extraneous variables, it ensures that any differences in dream recall (DV) are due to the sleep stage ppts are woken in (IV), not influenced by other factors.

Good

Another way to control the extraneous variables in this study is keeping the procedure standardized. One IV of this study the participants woke up after 5 minutes or 15 minutes of REM. In this study, all participants were woken up by a doorbell which is loud enough to wake the participant up immediately so that they can control the wake up time to be most accurate.

The DV in the study is toy choice, either plush or wheeled toys

One way Hasset et al. study reduced extraneous variables is by removing participants that are not affected by the IV. The original sample was 135 Rhesus monkeys. In it, 14 adult monkeys that received hormone treatment and 39 infants were not used. The IV will directly affects the DV now as the monkeys that are ambiguous with hormone were eliminated. (IV... đã tác động tới DV.... vì đã loại bỏ được những con khỉ chưa rõ ràng về hormones)

Another way Hasset et al. controlled extraneous variables is by standardising the equipment used in the study, making sure that the IV directly affects the DV. They set wheeled toys to be masculine toys, and plush toys to be feminine toys. The experimenter also set camera on each toy so that they can see which monkey (male or female) is interacting with the toy. This make sure that the sex difference in monkeys is actually affecting their toy choices. T=> Bỏ ý về cm đồ chơi, thêm ý về camera

Another type of observation is overt observation, which is when the role of observer is obvious to the ppts and ppts were aware that they were being observed. For example, in Milgram, the ppts know that an experimenter was watching them since the experimenter stayed in the room with them to record their behaviors and also to give instructions. This can help to record data with higher accuracy and in-depth data because the experimenter is close to the participants, making it easier to observe their emotions, facial expressions, and gestures.

6/6

Overt observation is when the participants know that they are being recorded by the researcher. One strength of this type of correlation is that the researcher will usually be near the participants during the study, allowing more detailed and in-depth data such as gesture, facial expression, verbal expression to be recorded. For example, in the Milgram study, a researcher will sit in the same room with the participants. Through this, they can record more detailed data about the participant's behaviour such as signs of distress like sweating or bitting their lips. They also recorded different verbal expression from the participants such as saying: "I can't do this anymore" and "Im gonna chicken out". This allow more in-depth and wider range of data to be recorded and analyzed.

The other type of observation is overt observation. This is when the participants are aware that they are being watch. For example, Ms. Linh wishes to observe her students' behavior in her classroom, and she decided to record the students' behaviors in front of them. The students are aware that they are being watched. This would make the observation easier for the observer, and the observer can record data with higher accuracy.

Covert observation is when the researcher observe people and not let they know that they are being observed. Example in Piliavin study, there are 2 female observers who act as a normal passengers and sit in the adjacent area to observe behaviours of people so passengers dont aware that they are being observed. This allow observer to disguise among the participants, observe people without letting them know so it could reduce the chance of demand characteristcs or social desirability where people would try to act diffrently rather than the researcher desire. Participants more likely to show natural behaviours and feel comfortable if they dont know they are being observe

People: shoppers + opportunity sampling
Procedure:

Use confederate( act as shopper)

Structured observation

Behavioural category:

1. Buy immediately: purchase products by just picking up from the display

2. Interact with shoppers: ask confederate or talk to shoppers about products and promotion

3. Buy carefully: consider products with alternatives or consider the promotions

Covert observation(confederate + camera)

Naturalistic observation( no interference) 

Participant observation( confederate =shopper) 

Observe verbal comments, emotions…
After observe, debrief and give a shopping voucher 

Analyse: 

Use bar graph: which behaviour seen the most

Study behind shoppers decisions 

        •        (a) Describe how Emily could conduct an observational study using structured observation to record the range of customer behaviors in the supermarket.

1. purpose: investigate range of behaviors 

2. place: field → in her local supermarket

3. people: use opportunity → customers shopping from 5-8pm 

4. procedure: 

• controlled obs → using a confederate → investigate interactions between people

• act as người bán hàng, chào hàng, nch vs customers về promotions (behaviors standardized)

• observer: covert, non-ppt → through cameras + microphone on the stooge to record quali

• structured obs → use behavior categories: Decision-making (behaviors like hesitating, returning to shelves, or changing product choices), Product Evaluation (behaviors like examining, reading labels, or comparing products), Non-verbal Social Behaviors (gestures like smiling, frowning, nodding, or showing frustration during social interactions)

4. analyse: quanti: count the frequency of each behavior → use measure of central tendency → calculate the mean to identify common behaviors → compare between trials by using bar graphs

quali: record quali through micro → code into categories like Giving advice (eg: gives a recommendation, opinion,..), Continues Shopping Without Interaction (participant walks away,..), Seek help (ask stooge questions…) 

       •        (b) (i) Describe one practical/methodological strength of the procedure you have described in your answer to part (a).

Do not refer to sampling or ethics in your answer.

one methodological strength of this study is by using structured observation. By using structured obs, the pre-defined behavioral categories used to record behaviors of ppts were standardised for all trials. This allow the data collecting process consistent for all ppts and between trials. 

        •        (c) (ii) Describe one practical/methodological weakness of the procedure you have described in your answer to part (a).

Do not refer to sampling or ethics in your answer."

one weakness is using field exp, so it might have low control over extraneous variables. for example, the lighting, background noise, or other customers’ behavior could influence how participants respond to the stooge or make purchasing decisions. this can reduce the validity of the results because researchers can be less certain that observed behaviors are solely due to the stooge’s actions or the promotions and product display and not other environmental influences.

Purpose + using structured observation, through a field experiment.

Place: In a supermarket

People: opportunity, record shoppers' behaviors inside the supermarket

IV: Discounted levels (10%, 30% 50%)

DV: Behaviors toward the discounted products

Procedure:

• Covert: Record from far without them knowing

• Non-participants: Record without involving in the study

• Controlled: Discounts on different products

• Structured: Create a behavioral categories (Interaction with other people, decision making, expression)

  1) Interaction with others: Asking the employee or talking to other customers

  2) Decision making: Time thinking, buy how many products

  3) Expression: Happy, excited, surprised

Analyze:

• Qualitative: Different verbal expression, gestures toward other people

• Quantitative: Bar graph (x: Discount(%), y:frequency/duration)

  Which emotion were seen the most, time thinking for each products, number of products they bought)

b)

i) One methodological strength of this study is the used of covert observation, which is when the participants are not aware of being recorded. In this study, the shoppers did not know that they are being recorded, which reduce demand characteristics and allow more naturalisic behaviors toward different products to be recorded.

ii) One methodological weakness of this study is possible extraneous. This study is conducted in a field environment and the researchers cannot control all extraneous variables. For example, the discounted products are not their targeted product, which may affect their behaviors toward them or if there are no other people near the area, they will not be able to interact with them.

place: field, supermarket, 9am-4pm -> mundane realism

people: opportunity, shoppers in a specific isle, try to get as close as 50 people as possible (25m, 25f)

prod:

IV:

• Active help (ask for help before the confederate ask)

• Passive help (ask for help after the confederate ask)

• No help (did not ask for help before and after the confederate ask)

• Other help (ask another person that is not the confederate for help)

A confederate will act as a supermarket helper, when a shopper seems to be interested in a product, the confederate will wait for around 2 minutes before approaching and ask "Do you need any help" -> standardisation

covert: confederate acting as a supermarket helper

structured: record whether the participant buys the product or not, and the quantity of the product (quantitative data)

Controlled: the confederate influenced the environment

participant: the confederate is involved in the situation

Record any verbal comments made by the participants (qualitative data)

Record the race, gender, approximate age of the participant

Analyse:

• Bar graph of buy rate between conditions of IV from quantitative data

• Analyse any verbal comments made by participants to further understand about their shopping habits

10 Dr Anand is interested in conversations that children aged 8-10 years old have with their parents. He wants to know about different features of these conversations, such as:

how long they talk for

what they talk about

how positive they feel about talking to each other.

He intends to study these conversations using structured interviews.

(a) Describe how Dr Anand could use structured interviews to study conversations that 8-10 year old children have with their parents.

Do not describe sample/sampling technique or ethical issues/guidelines in your answer.

Purpose: … by using structured interview 

Place: at school, natural setting, weekends from 9 to 5pm

Procedure: dress nicely, use recorder

Dr Anand's purpose of his study is to study how children aged 8-10 years old communicate with their parents by using a structured interview. He wants to see how long they talk for and what they talk about. His study can take place in the school, this will be in a natural setting, he can host an event for students and parents to come to school from 9am to 5pm on the weekends and interview them while they are talking. 

Dr Anand’s can hire a confederate to act as a parent and disguise into the events and interview family face to face using a hidden recorder. The confederate will wear standardised clothes, not too formal clothes but still clean (shirt, pants and shoes). He will also remain a positive attitude and say hi to every family to avoid bias from participants and to appear friendly. When interviewing, the confederate can note down people's emotions and behaviours. To standardise, he will interview families based on a fixed list and fix order of questions, using structured interviews. He can ask closed questions like “Do you usually talk with your parents/children?” (yes/no) and “Do you feel happy or uncomfortable when talking to your parents?” (happy/uncomfortable) limited options, “On a scale of 1-5 rating scales, how positive do you rate when you talk to each other?” , 1= negative, 5=very positive. The Confederate should also ask filler questions after closed questions to make families feel comfortable and disguise the aim such as “How do you feel about today's events?” or “Do you share any hobbies?” and “Do you often go together as a whole family?”. And then the confederate can ask open questions related to filler like “Does your talking topic relate to today's events? And “Do you talk about your same hobbies?”. After that, he can ask open questions such as “Describe the topic you usually talk about?”, “Can you estimate how long you talk for?” and “Describe how you feel when talking with each other?”. When the family are talking, Dr Anand can sit far away from them and observe, record their time spent talking together by using a clock. 

After collecting all data, both Dr Anand and confederate should check the recording and see if they produce the same records to increase inter rater reliability. He can compare between groups of male and female children using numerical scoring to see who feels more comfortable talking with their parents and who feel more positive by comparing the number of answers. He can also use measures of central tendency by calculating the mean score in rating scale to see how positive children feel when talking to parents. Dr Anand can find different topics that families talk about from studying the responses from open questions and if there are many repeated topics then he can find the mode which is the topic that families talk about the most. Qualitative data such as emotions and behaviours collected can be split into positive and negative responses. Positives will be people smiling, talking to the confederate for a full interview. Negatives will be angry, move away and avoid questions from confederates. Finally, Dr Anand can see if families estimate their talking time long or short and compare with his results when recorded by the clock and find how long they talk for.

b)One feature in the procedure that makes study reliable is using 2 raters. Dr Anand and confederate will both analyse the data after recording and reach a consensus, this makes data interpreting consistent and to make sure there is no bias between 2 raters, this increases inter rater reliability of the study. 

c) One feature in the procedure that makes study less reliable is participants not aware of the study and they are in a field setting so when confederates interview them, they can move away or stop answering mid conversation so it makes the interview process inconsistent between different participants. This makes the study less reliable since families answers are inconsistent and some answer all questions but some do not.

Place: artificial setting

Procedure: Structured interview

Face-to-face interview

Interviewer (Dr Anand) wears casually, sits in the opposite direction from children and talks with a friendly tone voice with them

1. Closed ended questions:

   • Do you enjoy talking with your parents? Yes/No

   • How often do you talk with your parents? Always/ Usually/ Sometimes/ Never (limited options)

   • Do you think we should keep some personal stuff from our parents and not talk about it? Agree/Disagree (likert scale)

   • How long do you usually talk with your parents? (minutes counted)

2. Open ended questions:

   • Describe how your conversations with your parents normally sound like?

   • Do you feel cautious when being open up to your parents when talking with them?

   • Explain how you do you feel when you having a conversations with your parents?

3. Filler questions:

   • What's your favorite food? If so, do you usually eat that when you spend time with your parents?

   • Do you like watching movie? If yes then do you talk about that movie with your parents?

All of these questions are fixed and in the same order for every children.

Analysis:

1. quantitative data:

   • use measure of central tendency (mean) to calculate the numerical data in the closed ended questions

   • find the percentage of the score to see how likely children talk with their parents

   • the rating scale would be used to see the mean time when they talk with their parents

2. qualitative data:

   • the verbal comments can be used to analyse to positive or negative responses

   • decode the descriptive data to shorter version with clear positive/ negative answers to compare with quantitative data

   • provides in-depth information to easily draw conclusion from the results.

     
     

The purpose of this investigation is the study conversations that 8-10 year old children have with their parents, using structured interview methodology. Dr Anand could conduct this study in an artificial environment to easily control extraneous variables and easier for standardisation. He could then introduce a face-to-face interview with children one by one. As this is a structured interview so Dr Anand should wear casually, sits in the opposite direction from children and talks with a friendly tone voice with them.

Prior to the study of Dr Anand, he should make a fixed sets of questions for every children he wants to interview. Firstly, he could conduct some closed-ended questions such as " Do you enjoy talking with your parents? Yes/No", "How often do you talk with your parents? Always/ Usually/ Sometimes/ Never" (limited options), "Do you think we should keep some personal stuff from our parents and not talk about it? Agree/Disagree" (likert scale), "How long do you usually talk with your parents?" (minutes counted). Secondly, a set of open ended questions should also be considered such as "Describe how your conversations with your parents normally sound like?", "Do you feel cautious when being open up to your parents when talking with them?", "Explain how you do you feel when you having a conversations with your parents?". Lastly, asking some filler questions could be possible to avoid children knowing the aim of the study such as "What's your favorite food? If so, do you usually eat that when you spend time with your parents?", "Do you like watching movie? If yes then do you talk about that movie with your parents?". The filler questions could be asked in between closed-ended questions and open-ended questions so that children would not be able to guess that is the odd questions being asked. For example, one filler question can be asked after the interviewer has asked the question about "Do you think we should keep some personal stuff from our parents and not talk about it?". After all, this set of questions may have 20-25 questions and the interview can be lasted for at least 15 minutes.

After collecting the information and data from children, Dr Anand should analyse quantitative data qualitative data. For quantitative data, he should use measure of central tendency, especially mean, to calculate the numerical data collected in the closed ended questions. He can also find the percentage of the score to see how likely children talk with their parents. The rating scale could be used to see the mean time when they talk with their parents. For qualitative data, the verbal comments can be used to analyse to positive or negative responses. For example, when the children tell about the topics they usually talk with their parents, the topics could be various so encode these into positive topics or negative topics could be easier to compare with the quantitative data. This would provide in-depth information and comparison to easily draw conclusion from the results of the study.

b, (i) this is a structured interview so the order and position of the questions are fixed and repeated the same for every children. Therefore, this enhances standardisation and helps to make the study reliable.

(ii) Due to its structured format of the interview, it restricts flexibility and could hamper interviewer from investigating intricate responses. The fixed questions may also lead to incomplete or inaccurate data collection if they don't fully capture the complexity of the research topic. Therefore, this lowers the reliability of the study.

1. purpose: to investigate…

2. people

3. place: in normal environment → at elementary school

4. procedure:

• come to school → interview each children individually

• do a face to face structured interview → fixed order → keep standardised

• Dr dressed casually professional clothes → standardised for all children → reduce stress 

• 3 closed: yes no likert rating 

• 2 filler

• 3 opened: tell me, describe, explain

5. analysis: quanti: count → measure of central: mean 

quali: watched the video + interpret + code children behaviors 

The purpose of this investigation is to study the conversation between 8-10 year old children and their parents using structured interviews. The interviews would take place in children’s normal settings, which are at their elementary school. This can help reduce stress for children and allow them to feel more comfortable expressing their opinions.

Dr Anand would come to school on a school day and would interview the children individually in a quiet room. Since Dr Anand interviewed the children at school, he used face-to-face structured interviews, asking questions in a fixed order for all participants to maintain standardization. The conversations would get recorded using a tape recorder for later analysis. Additionally, Dr. Anand should dress neatly in casual-professional clothing, such as trousers and a polo shirt, to help reduce social pressure on the children and increase consistency between trials. For the set of questions, he should ask 3 closed ended questions, then 2 filler questions and end with 3 open ended questions. To begin with, Dr Anand should ask closed ended questions such as limited options questions (eg: “How long do you and your parents often talk for in a day? with options 0-15 minutes, 15-30 minutes, 30 minutes - 1 hour, more than 1 hour ), or ask Likert scale questions (eg: “I like talking with my parents” with options Disagree, Neutral, Agree), or he could ask rating scale questions (eg: “On a scale of 0-6, rate your feelings when you are talking to your parents, with 0: feeling very negatively like very sad and 6: feeling very positively like very happy). Then, after done asking 3 closed questions, Dr Anand should ask 2 filler questions such as “Who took you to school today?” or “Do you often hanging out with your parents?”, as this help to misled children from the true aim of the study and help reduce children feeling stressed. Then, Dr Anand should ask some open ended questions such as “Describe the stories or the content that you often talk about with your parents” or “Describe your feelings when you are talking to your parents”.

After data collection, to analyze quantitative data, Dr Anand could use numerical scoring and count the responses for each option in the closed ended questions, and use measure of central tendency, such as the mean, to calculate the average time children spent talking to their parents. For qualitative data, Dr Anand interpret the children’s behaviors by coding their responses in open-ended questions into categories such as Engaged responses (e.g. speak clearly, share many information,..), or Reluctant responses (e.g: giving short answers,...)

b) Keeping the clothes worn by Dr Anand the same for all children during the interview helps to make the study more reliable, because it helps to keep standardisation between trials and help reduce extraneous variables. If he dressed differently, it could affect the children’s responses. For example, casual clothes might make children feel more comfortable, leading to detailed answers, while formal clothes could make them nervous, resulting in shorter responses. By keeping his clothes the same for all children, some extraneous variables can be reduced, making the study more reliable.

c) Due to using structured interview format, it reduces the flexibility of the researcher to the ppts. Since the questions are set and asked in a specific order, the researchers could not adjust their questions based on the participant's answers, and hard to explore more the reasons behind ppts’ responses. This can make the researchers miss out on some important information on the topic, making the results less reliable. 

The purpose of this study is to investigate the conversation between 8-10 year old children and their parents using structured interview. The interview could take place in a lab, where the participants will have to individually complete a face-to-face interview, from 2pm-5pm on the weekend. This could help reduce extraneous variables that could affect the children's answers such as noise or lightning.

The interviewer should dress casually so the children won't feel scared or uncomfortable during the interview .Dr Anand used structured interview to ask a fixed set of questions to keep the standardization of the study. He could ask different open-question such as "How long do you spend talking to your parents?", "What do you talk about during your conversation with your parents?". He could also ask different closed questions. He could ask Likert scale questions such as "You like to talk to your parents.(strongly agree/agree/disagree/strongly disagree)" or rating scale questions such as "On a scale from 0-4, rate how much you enjoy talking to your parents." Dr Anand could add filler questions such as "Do you like your mother's food?" or "Does your dad often play with you?" in the middle of the interview. This will distract the participants from guessing the aim of the study and therefore reduce demand characteristics. After this, he can switch back to the fixed set of questions.

After this, the quantitative data collected could be used to measure the central tendency of the data. It could be used for Dr Anand to find out out the mean time the children spend talking to their parents. For the qualitative data, the answers of the open questions can be used to analyze the positivity and negativity of the children and their parents during their conversation. For example, smilling or laughing will indicate positivity while crying or feeling angry will indicate negativity. Qualitative data could also be used to explore the topics in their conversation. After the study, if he finds that some participants don't spend much time talking to their parents, he could suggest them ways to fix it.

b)

i)

One feature that helps to make the study reliable is high standardization. The study used structured interview, with a fixed set of questions asked for all the participants. The standardization of the equipment will help with the study's consistency and therefore increases it reliability.

ii)

One feature that make the study less reliable is the used of structured interview. This means that the researchers will use the same fixed set of questions, which lower the study's flexibility and will prevent the researchers to explore more in-depth or complex data. Therefore lower the study's reliability.

Place: In a lab -> reduce extraneous variables

Proc:

Create a list of questions to ask, the questions and the order of question would always be the same

Closed:

Rating scale: from 0 to 8, how positive do you feel when you talk with your parents?

Yes-no: Do you often talk to your parents about your hobbies?

Open: Tell me a rough estimate of the length of your conversations with your parents

Face to face

The purpose of this study is to investigate the conversations that 8–10-year-old children have with their parents by using structured interview. He could conduct the interview in a lab to reduce extraneous variables from affecting the participants' answer, such as loud sounds distracting the participants from the question.

Dr. Anand could ask the parents and the children to come to the lab for a face-to-face, structured interview. He should create a list of questions to ask the participants. Dr. Anand should include 4 closed-ended questions and 3 open-ended questions. He should only ask the questions in the list in one specific order. This would help to keep the consistency between trials, and to keep the standardisation of the study. The experimenter should wear casual clothing, such as a blouse with jeans to reduce any pressure to answer the questions on the children. The interviewer should walk in, say hi to the children, and start the interview. Interviewer ăn mặc ra sao, xuất hiện như thế nào? Dr. Anand's interview should consist closed questions, such as a limited-option question: "How long do you usually talk to your children per day? under 10 minutes, from 10 to 20 minutes, from 20 to 30 minutes, over 30 minutes?" or rating scale questions: "How much do you enjoy talking to your parents, from 0 to 8?". Closed ended questions would help the experimenter to collect quantitative data, which is easy to compare. Dr. Anand should also include open ended questions, such as "Describe some topics you usually talk about to your parents". This could help Dr. Anand to collect quantitative data, which is in-depth and detailed. (cho cái này lên trên) He should also add 2 filler questions, such as "Do you usually talk to your parents when you're having dinner?", to distract the participants from the true aim of the study. After all questions have been asked, Dr. Anand should thank the children and the parents for participating in the study.

To analyse the data, Dr. Anand could draw a scattergram to see the correlation between how much the children enjoy the conversation and how long the conversation last. He could also draw a bar graph to compare the length of the conversation between different topics.

The study was conducted in a lab, so the procedure can be easily standardised. Lab setting can help to keep control of extraneous variables; therefore, the procedure can be kept the same in all trials. So, the consistency between trials can be kept, and the study can be easily conduct in the future.

The study used structured interview, so the experimenter could have missed critical information when collecting data. As the questions were fixed, some participants might answer in more details, while others could've answered briefly. Structured interview prevent the experimenter from exploring the answer more, so the data collected between each participants could differs. So, the consistency between trials were not kept, and the study is low in reliability.

purpose: .. + by using case study

place: nature setting, participants house

people: a family who live in remote house and do not interact with people often -> use opportunity sampling

procedure:

triangulation:

interview, observation and questionnaire

Seth come to test participants every months for 6 months and see the pattern of communication and emotion

lots of communication or few

sad or happy...

(a) Describe how Seth could conduct a case study to investigate the communication and emotion in this family

1. purpose: investigate

2. people: about a family… → recruit through opportunity sampling (the family responds through the advertisement on internet 

3. place: lab exp → standardisation 

4. procedure: use triangulation (questionnaire, interview, observation) 

• questionnaire + interview to study about communication 

• use structured questionnaires before and after → see how communication changes 

• semi structured interview: closed filler open → reasons behind why ko nch vs nhau

• set cameras around house to see how member interact 

• give them tasks + HW to help increase interactions 

• seth observe through cam + come to house every 2 weeks for 6 months to check on them + see the progress 

5. analysis: 

Place: the family's remote house, where they live with minimal contact with outsiders (natural setting)

People: mother, father, grandmother, son

Procedure: Triangulation

1. Interview: Semi-structured interviews

   • closed-ended, open-ended, filler questions

   • Topics: emotional expression, family communication habits, conflict resolution, emotional support

2. Observation: non-ppts

   • observe the family over multiple days during routine activities like meals, discussions, or leisure time

   • focus on body language, tone of voice, and reactions to emotional situations

3. Writing diary (longitudinal data)

   • each member will be asked to keep a brief daily diary for a week, noting emotional events and communication with others

   • prompts: "Describe one emotionally significant moment today?" or "Who did you talk to and how did it make you feel?"

Analysis: quali + quanti

quanti:

observation: count specific behaviors, create frequency table

Diary: numerical values to emotional ratings, use bar charts to track changes over the week

statistics: mean frequency of interactions per day, mode of most commonly reported emotions

quali:

collect all in-depth detail information and decode them to positive or negative

=> follow continuously 6-12 months until...

People: A family recruited using volunteer sampling, through an online ads

Place: Lab, to help with standardization and reduce extraneous variables

Procedure: Questionnaire, interview, observation (triangulation)

• Questionnaire: Ask questions related to communication

• Interview: Semi-structured

• Observation: Through hidden cameras inside the house to observe the family's communication habit

• Pattern of communication and emotions will be tested every 3 months

• Analyze:

  Quanti: Frequency of behaviors, duration of the communication

  Quali: In-depth data to explore the positivity and negativity during the conversation