Research Methodology and Statistics in Psychology
What it is
Unit 2 is psychology's method spine: turning a problem into a testable hypothesis, sampling and treating participants ethically, choosing a paradigm and method, and picking the statistic or design that answers the question. UGC-NET examines it through definitions, test-selection matching, formulas and short computations.
Core concepts
Research, hypotheses and variables. Kerlinger defines scientific research as systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of hypothesised relations among phenomena; its purposes are exploratory, descriptive, explanatory and predictive, and its dimensions include basic versus applied and cross-sectional versus longitudinal. A research problem should be clear, researchable and significant, ideally a question about how variables relate. A hypothesis is a testable statement of a relation between variables: null H0 versus alternative H1, directional (one-tailed) or not (two-tailed). Rejecting a true H0 is a Type I error (α); retaining a false H0 is a Type II error (β). Variables are independent (manipulated), dependent (measured), extraneous or confounding, moderator (alters the strength of a relation) and mediator (carries the effect). An operational definition states a concept as the operations that measure it.
Sampling. Probability designs give every unit a known chance: simple random, systematic (every kth unit), stratified, cluster and multistage. Non-probability designs: convenience, purposive, quota and snowball (hidden populations). The standard error of the mean, σ/√n, falls as n rises.
Ethics in conducting and reporting. The Nuremberg Code (1947), the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and the Belmont Report (1979: respect for persons, beneficence, justice) underlie the APA Ethics Code. Duties: informed consent, freedom to withdraw, minimal risk, confidentiality, deception only when unavoidable and always followed by debriefing, and ethics-committee review. Milgram's obedience studies and Zimbardo's prison study (1971) are the classic controversies. Reporting forbids fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, and requires honest authorship and data sharing.
Paradigms and quantitative methods. Quantitative research is deductive and statistical; qualitative research is inductive, seeks meaning in context and is judged by trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba); mixed methods combine them (Creswell: convergent, explanatory sequential, exploratory sequential). Observation is naturalistic or controlled, participant or not; reactivity (the Hawthorne effect) threatens it. Surveys use interviews (structured to unstructured) or questionnaires. An experiment manipulates the IV with random assignment; a quasi-experiment lacks random assignment (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). Field studies trade control for realism. Cross-cultural studies guard against bias with back-translation and separate emic (culture-specific) from etic (universal) constructs.
Qualitative methods. Phenomenology describes lived experience by bracketing presuppositions (Smith's IPA). Grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) builds theory from data by constant comparison and theoretical sampling to saturation, with open, axial and selective coding (Strauss and Corbin). Focus groups use about six to ten people and a moderator. Narrative research analyses life stories; case studies probe one unit in depth; ethnography is prolonged participant observation yielding Geertz's thick description.
Central tendency, dispersion and the normal curve. Use the mean for interval data, the median for ordinal or skewed data, the mode for nominal; for moderate skew, mode ≈ 3 median − 2 mean. Dispersion: range, quartile deviation (Q3 − Q1)/2, SD, and CV = SD/mean × 100. The normal probability curve is symmetric (mean = median = mode), asymptotic, with inflection points at ±1σ; ±1σ holds 68.26%, ±2σ 95.44%, ±3σ 99.73%, while ±1.96σ and ±2.58σ bound 95% and 99%. In positive skew, mean > median > mode. Garrett's kurtosis Ku = Q/(P90 − P10) is 0.263 for the normal curve; above it is platykurtic, below leptokurtic.
Parametric and non-parametric tests; power; effect size. Parametric tests assume interval data, normality and equal variances. The t-test compares two means: independent (df = n1 + n2 − 2) or paired (df = n − 1). Non-parametric counterparts: the sign test uses only the direction of paired differences; the Wilcoxon signed-rank test uses direction and ranked size (paired t); Mann-Whitney U compares two independent groups (independent t); Kruskal-Wallis H, three or more independent groups (one-way ANOVA); Friedman, three or more related conditions (repeated-measures ANOVA). Power = 1 − β, rising with n, α and effect size; 0.80 is Cohen's convention. Cohen's d = (M1 − M2)/SD: 0.2 small, 0.5 medium, 0.8 large; η² = SSbetween/SStotal.
Correlation. Pearson's r suits linear interval data, and r² is shared variance; Spearman's rho = 1 − 6Σd²/[n(n² − 1)] suits ranks. Partial correlation removes a third variable from both: r12.3 = (r12 − r13 × r23)/√[(1 − r13²)(1 − r23²)]. Multiple correlation R1.23 links one variable to the best weighted combination of others and runs 0 to 1. Biserial: continuous × artificially dichotomised; point-biserial: continuous × genuine dichotomy; tetrachoric: both artificially dichotomised, normal underneath; phi: both genuine dichotomies, φ = √(χ²/N).
Regression and factor analysis. Simple regression Y′ = a + bX by least squares, with b = r(SY/SX), a = Ȳ − bX̄ and standard error of estimate SY√(1 − r²). Multiple regression adds predictors; beta weights compare them, R² is variance explained, and multicollinearity distorts weights. Factor analysis assumes linear relations, an adequate sample, KMO adequacy and a significant Bartlett's test. Methods: principal components (Hotelling), principal axis, Thurstone's centroid, maximum likelihood; keep factors with eigenvalue > 1 (Kaiser) or above the scree elbow (Cattell). Rotation seeks Thurstone's simple structure: orthogonal (varimax) keeps factors uncorrelated, oblique (oblimin, promax) lets them correlate. Interpret a factor by naming what its high loadings (about .30 or .40 and above) share. Communality h² is a variable's sum of squared loadings across factors; an eigenvalue sums a factor's squared loadings.
Experimental designs. One-way ANOVA: F = MSbetween/MSwithin, df k − 1 and N − k; post hoc tests (Tukey, Scheffé) locate differences. Factorial ANOVA adds interaction. Randomized block designs remove block variance from error. Repeated-measures designs test everyone in every condition, need counterbalancing and assume sphericity. A Latin square puts each treatment once in every row and column, controlling two nuisance variables. Cohort studies follow a group sharing a characteristic over time; time-series designs measure repeatedly around an intervention. MANOVA handles several DVs (Wilks' lambda); ANCOVA adjusts the DV for a covariate such as a pretest. Single-subject designs (ABAB reversal, multiple baseline) compare treatment with baseline A.
Worked example
Independent t-test, effect size and an ANOVA cross-check. Recall scores (illustrative data) after relaxation training (A) and with no training (B):
| Group | Scores | ΣX | Mean | SS = Σ(X − M)² |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 12, 14, 15, 16, 18 | 75 | 15 | 9 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 9 = 20 |
| B | 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 | 55 | 11 | 9 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 9 = 20 |
- Pooled variance = (20 + 20)/(5 + 5 − 2) = 40/8 = 5.
- Standard error of the difference = √[5 × (1/5 + 1/5)] = √2 ≈ 1.414.
- t = (15 − 11)/1.414 ≈ 2.83 with df = 8. Two-tailed critical t is 2.306 at .05 and 3.355 at .01: reject H0 at .05, not at .01.
- Cohen's d = 4/√5 = 4/2.236 ≈ 1.79, a large effect.
Second route, one-way ANOVA on the same scores. Grand mean = 130/10 = 13. SSbetween = 5 × (15 − 13)² + 5 × (11 − 13)² = 20 + 20 = 40. SSwithin = 20 + 20 = 40. Raw-score check: ΣX² = 1145 + 625 = 1770, and 1770 − 10 × 13² = 1770 − 1690 = 80 = 40 + 40. F = (40/1)/(40/8) = 8 = t², since 2.828² = 8; critical F(1, 8) at .05 = 5.32 = 2.306². η² = 40/80 = 0.50, matching t²/(t² + df) = 8/16.
Common traps
- Biserial assumes an artificial dichotomy; point-biserial a genuine one.
- The sign test ignores the size of differences; Wilcoxon ranks it.
- Kruskal-Wallis is for independent groups; Friedman for related conditions.
- Partial r runs −1 to +1; multiple R runs 0 to 1.
- A quasi-experiment differs from a true experiment in lacking random assignment, not necessarily manipulation.
- Significance is not size: a tiny effect can be significant with a huge n.
Speed technique
- Pick a test by three questions: how many groups, independent or related, interval or ordinal.
- With two groups, F = t² and the critical F is the critical t squared.
- Communality runs along a variable's row; an eigenvalue runs down a factor's column.
- NPC: 68.26, 95.44, 99.73; 1.96 for 95%, 2.58 for 99%.
Check yourself
- Which non-parametric test replaces repeated-measures one-way ANOVA?
Show answer
Friedman test — k related conditions, ranked within each participant. - If r12 = .60, r13 = .50 and r23 = .50, what is r12.3?
Show answer
About .47 — (.60 − .25)/√(.75 × .75) = .35/.75. - Which coefficient correlates sex (a genuine dichotomy) with an anxiety score?
Show answer
Point-biserial r — biserial needs an artificial dichotomy. - Three groups of 10 are compared by one-way ANOVA. What are the df?
Show answer
2 and 27 — k − 1 = 2, N − k = 30 − 3. - Which kind of rotation is varimax?
Show answer
Orthogonal — factors remain uncorrelated.
Try it: Research Methodology and Statistics in Psychology questions
Real questions from the NET Psychology bank on exactly this skill. Pick an answer to see the full solution — the intuition, the worked steps, the faster methods and the traps.
Read the following Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and choose the correct answer from the given options: Assertion (A) : A quasi-experiment supports weaker causal conclusions than a true experiment. Reason (R) : A quasi-experiment lacks random assignment of participants to conditions.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option A
The assertion is true: Campbell and Stanley treat quasi-experimental designs as more open to threats to internal validity than true experiments.
The reason is true and explains it: without random assignment, pre-existing differences between groups can mimic or hide the effect of the independent variable.
So the assertion "A quasi-experiment supports weaker…" and its reason are both true, and (R) explains (A), option A.
Consider the following two statements: Statement I: In a one-way ANOVA comparing four groups of eight participants each, the between-groups degrees of freedom are 3. Statement II: In the same design, the within-groups degrees of freedom are 31. In the light of the above statements, choose the correct answer from the options.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option C
With k = 4 groups and N = 4 × 8 = 32, the between-groups df = k − 1 = 4 − 1 = 3, so Statement I is true.
The within-groups df = N − k = 32 − 4 = 28; the figure 31 is the total df, N − 1, so Statement II is false.
So Statement I, "In a one-way ANOVA comparing four groups…", is true and Statement II is false, option C.
Arrange the following in chronological order: I. The Belmont Report II. The Declaration of Helsinki III. The Nuremberg Code IV. Zimbardo's Stanford prison study Choose the correct answer from the options.
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option C
The Nuremberg Code dates from 1947, the Declaration of Helsinki from 1964, Zimbardo's prison study from 1971 and the Belmont Report from 1979.
In numeral order that sequence is III, II, IV, I.
So the chronological order is III, II, IV, I, option C.
For three variables, r12 = .70, r13 = .50 and r23 = .40. The partial correlation r12.3, holding variable 3 constant, is closest to:
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option B
Numerator: r12 − r13 × r23 = .70 − (.50 × .40) = .70 − .20 = .50.
Denominator: √[(1 − .50²)(1 − .40²)] = = √.63 ≈ .794.
r12.3 = .50/.794 ≈ .63.
So the partial correlation is about .63, option B.
Two judges rank the same six students. The sum of squared differences between the two sets of ranks, Σd², is 14. Spearman's rho is:
Show the answer and worked solution
Answer: option A
rho = 1 − 6Σd²/[n(n² − 1)] = 1 − (6 × 14)/[6 × (36 − 1)] = 1 − .
= 0.40, so rho = 1 − 0.40 = 0.60.
So Spearman's rho is 0.60, option A.
Answer above — every one shows its working.