Research Methods Outline Meta-analysis Correlation Quasi-Experiments Discuss Questionnaire Data Observational Research Activity: Observational Research

Meta-analysis A set of statistical procedures for combining the results of a number of studies in order to provide a general assessment of the relationship between the variables Tells us if there is a difference between groups Tells us how strong the finding is, the effect size

Meta-Analysis Examples Example: Participation rate & leader emergence (Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989) One of the strongest determinants of who emerges leader in a group is the member with the highest participation Example: Social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1989) Social loafing is greater for males than females and more pronounced as the size of the group increases SOCIAL

Correlational Research Method Researchers gather a set of observations about a group of people and test for associations between different variables Tells you whether 2 variables are associated with each other systematically Cannot prove cause- effect X could cause Y Y could cause X Z could cause X and Y (third variable problem)

Correlation Measures the degree and direction of linear relationship between 2 variables Two parts to a correlation Strength Direction Positive or negative The Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) Closer to 1 or –1 means stronger relationship Positive value indicates positive relationship, negative value is negative relationship

Positive Correlations As one variable goes up the other one goes up as well (or as one goes down the other goes down) STRONG (r = 1.0) WEAKER ( r=.60)

Negative Correlations As one variable goes up the other one goes DOWN (or as one goes down the other goes up) STRONG (r = -1.0) WEAKER ( r= -.60)

Quasi-Experiments Sometimes known as queasy-experiments Can give experimental purists a queasy feeling Researcher has only partial control over her/his independent variables Participants assigned to 1 or more conditions by means other than random assignment A correlational method in which real-world groups are compared on a DV.

Quasi-Experiment Research Example Out-group homogeneity effect Perceive out-group as more homogeneous (less diverse) than the in-group In-group bias Tendency to more favorably evaluate members of In- group EXAMPLE: Park and Rothbart (1982) 3 sororities Rate own and other 2 Results: Clear evidence of out-group homogeneity effect Clear evidence of in-group bias

Yet another example… Stereotype Threat (Steele) Stereotyped group is aware of the stereotype Creates apprehension and impaired performance EXAMPLE: Steele & Aronson, 1994 Difficult verbal test: Black & White Stanford students Two conditions: Testing intellectual ability Testing the test Results: When testing the test: B & W performed equally well When testing IQ= B poorer than W

Class Questionnaire Data Develop Hypotheses with these variables: Comfort with working in groups and cooperation in last student project Years playing team sports and preference to work in a group Gender and teamwork attitude Gender and leadership in student project Gender and number of years in team sports

Class Questionnaire Data Correlation Group Comfort and cooperation in group tasks r= -.27 Years and preference for groups r = +.33 Quasi-experiment Gender & teamwork attitude No difference Women and men: 5.15 Gender & leadership in student project Men report more leadership experience Men: 5.85, Women: 4.88 Gender & number of year of team experience Men report more years of team experience Women: 10.15, men:12.77

Final Questionnaire Issues Social desirability bias A bias resulting from participants giving responses that make them look good rather than giving honest responses You completed 2 different scales: LIKERT scale: Items typically asking whether participants strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL scale: Participants rate a given concept on a series of 7-point bipolar attitude scales Summarizing open-ended question responses

Observational Research Observational methods Nonexperimental methods in which observers watch groups to gather information Methods vary with respect to Degree to which observer is part of a group Degree to which observations are structured

Observational Research Gender, group size, and amount of beer consumed (Geller, Russ, & Altomari) Observed 56 females 187 males at local bars (students years) Results Drank more in a group Males drank more than females  Function of container type

Unstructured Observational Methods Unstructured: Observers offer impressionistic, descriptive accounts of the group Participant observation Researcher becomes a member of the group being studied

Unstructured Observational Methods Participant observation examples: Whyte (1943) Joined Italian American gang in Boston Festinger, Reiken, & Schachter (1956) Joined ‘doomsday’ cult, pretended to believe in world ending Ezekiel (1995) Attended neo-Nazi and KKK groups to get an insider’s look Martel (2001) Joined Jewish Harley Davidson riders Bock (2000) Was member of ‘single moms by choice’ support group

Criticisms of Participant Observation By joining the group, they change it in some way Groups are unaware they are being observed May be unethical People don’t liked to be spied on, feel betrayed, foolish Observer bias Hard to quantify unstructured data

Structured Observational Methods Structured Quantitative methods in which group behaviors are observed and recorded with objective system Researcher must meticulously develop coding system Code things relevant to research Coding system is lens of research Interrater reliability Extent to which the ratings of different observers are in agreement

Interaction Process Analysis Observational coding system developed by Bales to measure 6 task and 6 socioemotional activities in a group

Interaction Process Analysis Example (Hutson-Comeaux & Kelly, 1996) Investigated whether female and male groups of college students differed in their interaction style Found that females engaged in more positive socioemotional behavior and males engaged in more task-oriented behavior

Class Activity: Studying Groups Communication and content analysis Castle building exercise

Observational Research Discussion Use your data to draw conclusions about the groups structure and process Use the information from the communication analysis to identify the group’s leader as well as other members who were more or less active in the activity. Use the information from the content analysis to identify the overall content of the groups discussion. (Items 1-3 and are socioemotional activities, 4-9 are task activites, see Forsyth, p.32) Report your findings to the class