Changing the way you learn

Question	Answer
Aim	To investigate whether there is a relationship between age and time taken to respond to incongruent stimuli on the Stroop test.
Research methods	Correlational study Covariables = age and reaction time on Stroop test.
Exp design	Independent groups design - Participants are only taking part in one condition as it is naturally occurring.
Co variable 1	Covariable 1 - Age (operationalised studying people over and under the age of 30).
covariable 2	Corvariable 2 - Reaction time (in milliseconds) to identify the colour of the word on incongruent trials.
Extraneous Variables	EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES – Time of day, noise, temperature of the room they are doing the Stroop test
confounding variables	CONFOUNDING VARIABLES – Eyesight, boredom, tiredness, colour blindness.
Alternative hypothesis	There will be a positive correlation between age and reaction time to identify the colour of the word on incongruent trials on the Stroop test.
Null hypothesis	There will be no correlation between age and reaction time to identify the colour of the word on incongruent trials on the Stroop test.
Sampling method description	Recruiting ppts - Opportunity sampling Participants (students and teachers) who were available during the period 5 on Wednesday were asked to take part in our study on the Stroop test.
Description of sample	14 participants aged below 30 (but above the age of 16) - sixth form students and teachers at school. 14 participants aged 30 and above - teachers at school. Gender: ____ Males ____ Females
Procedure	1-Participants asked if they would like to participate in a study involving the stroop test using opportunity sampling. 2-Standardised brief read out to participants and verbal consent obtained. 3-Demographic questionnaire given to participants, including key question about age (also, gender) 4-Standardised instructions given to participants.
Procedure pt2	Participants can access the Stroop test online and complete it. Participants reaction time for the incongruent trials are recorded. Standardised debrief read out to participants with the true aims of the study. Investigate whether there is a relationship between age and reaction time on incongruent trials.
Ethics issue 1- Deception	Deception Participants not told that we are looking if there is a correlation between age and their reaction time on the Stroop test until the debrief (reduces demand characteristics and social desirability)
Ethics issue 2- valid consent	Lack of valid consent Deceived so can’t make informed choices about whether to participate. Although consent was obtained at the end of the study when ppts submitted their data after the debrief.
Ethics issue 3-risk of harm	Risk of harm Could cause stress/anxiety or embarrassment if they find the stroop test challenging. Could lower self-esteem if their performance is poor (slow reaction time).
Ethics issue 4-confidentiality	Confidentiality Anonymity of data will be guaranteed as no names or identifiable information will be collected.
Dealing with ethical issues	Ethical guidelines will be adhered to. No ppts classed as vulnerable (all age 16+) Debriefing: Retrospective consent will be gained after ppts have taken part in the experiment. Ppts will be made aware of their participation and nature of study, give the option of disclosing any unforeseen psychological harm which can be dealt with appropriately. Right to withdraw: Given right to withdraw at any point during study and option to withdraw their data during the debrief. Ensure all data is kept anonymous.
Results	We gained the incongruent results from each of the under 30 and over 30 ppts to represent their reaction times.
Descriptive statistics- under 30	Descriptive statistics: Under 30 Mean: 1232.42 Median: 1190 Mode: 1190 Range: 7821 Standard deviation: 306.51
Descriptive statistics- over 30	Over 30 Mean: 969 Median: 938 Mode: 834 Range: 901 Standard deviation: 188.95
Inferential statistics	Inferential statistics: A spearman's rho test was used as we were looking for a correlation (between age and reaction time on the Stroop test) and used ordinal data. As the calculated value of 0.42 was greater than the critical value of 0.04 the results are significant and we can accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null.
Graphical representation	A scatter graph was used to display the relationship between two co-variables (reaction time in incongruent trials (ms) and age). This graph allowed us to visualise the direction and strength of the correlation.
Conclusions	As the calculated value of 0.42 was greater than the critical value of 0.04 when completing the Spearman’s Rho test, we can accept the alternative hypothesis and state that there is a positive correlation between age and reaction time when completing the incongruent trials on the Stroop test. Therefore, as age increases, so does reaction time.
Research methods-eval -strengths	Used when experiments are inappropriate - in this case as we could not manipulate age. Shows the direction and strength of the relationship - allows us to make future predictions.
Research method eval-weaknesses	Cannot establish cause and effect due to no manipulation of variables. There may be other variables that explain relationships e.g. eyesight which declines with age.
Design-eval-strengths	Order effects are not an issue Social desirability and demand characteristics are not an issue
Design-eval-weaknesses	Individual differences may skew results More costly than repeated measures as ppts are only used once.
Controls-eval-strengths	Extraneous variables (age of ppts, time of day completing Stroop test, location) Demand characteristics avoided (independent groups) Standardised procedures (brief, debrief etc).
Control-eval-weaknesses	Confounding variables (eyesight, tiredness, familiarity with computers) Standardisation - different investigators asking ppts to take part.
Sampling method-eval-strength	Convenient - saves researcher time and effort COMPARED TO stratified. Less costly in terms of time and money COMPARED TO stratified.
Sampling method-eval-weakness	Unrepresentative of target population (drawn from specific area) so findings cannot be generalised to target population. Researcher bias - researcher has complete control over selection of ppts and may avoid certain people.
Sample-eval-strengths	Participants do not require parental consent (over 16) Easy to access ppts: only needed consent from head-teacher.
Sample-eval-weaknesses	Small sample from one school (students and teachers - not representative) Ppts will have a previous opinion/relationship on researchers (peers).
Ethics-strengths	Informed consent - ppts entering their data. Participants were given right to withdraw and debriefed (retrospective consent) Deception - can be justified as ppts were not caused undue distress Confidentiality - no identifiable data was collected All over the age of 16.
Ethics-weaknesses	Informed consent - ppts cannot give full informed consent if they do not know the true aims of the experiment.
Reliability-eval-strength	High internal reliability: all researchers used the same materials (Stroop test), standardised instructions used
Reliability-eval-weakness	Low external reliability: should have done the study again a few weeks later to see if we get the same results - test-retest method. Same researcher not used for all ppts - lowers internal
Validity-eval-strength	Concurrent validity - stroop test Confidentiality - reduces social desirability bias.
Validity-eval-weakness	Confounding variables not controlled for e.g. eyesight Low external validity - can only be generalised to 16-17 year olds and teachers who live in similar geographical locations. Population validity - sample size was small
Extraneous/confounding variables-eval strengths	Controlled for age - under 30 and over 30 Excluded anyone who was colour blind Extraneous variables - time of day, location controlled
Extraneous/confounding variables-eval weaknesses	Should have controlled gender Should have controlled for stress by getting ppts to fill out questionnaire prior to the stroop test
Materials- eval-strength	High reliability: same measure used (stroop test) Objective measure of selective attention and reaction time
Materials-eval-weakness	’Screw you’ effect may be an issue. Requires some computer skills

Next up

Stroop test

Description

Resource summary

Similar

	Created by Darcey Griffiths 10 days ago