|
WHAT ARE SELF-REPORTS?
The self-report is the most widely-used method in the psychologist's toolkit because it gathers information from large numbers of participants.
Self-reports are opposed to observations.
Self-reports get information direct from the participants about their behaviour or thoughts; observations are the researchers' interpretations of what the participants are doing or thinking There are two types of self-reports:
The Edexcel Specification uses the term "self-report" as well as interviews and questionnaires - it's helpful to group them together and contrast them with observations.
Self-reports are non-experimental in design - they describe but they don't point towards causes. However, they are often used as part of an experimental design as a way of gathering information about the independent variable (IV) or of measuring the dependent variable (DV).
INTERVIEWS
Interviews are usually face-to-face conversations (although they can take place over a telephone or over social media).
What makes an interview different from a questionnaire is that the interviewer is contributing at the same time as the interviewee. This usually takes the form of the interviewer asking questions and the interviewee answering them - but sometimes the interviewee might ask questions or the interviewer might offer instructions, clarifications or responses of their own.
Interviews are often recorded (either audio-only or filmed). They can be transcribed (written down) later and analysed in detail.
Unstructured interviews: not always obvious who is the interviewer and who is the interviewee
Structured interviews: the questions are fixed in advance and only certain responses are allowed (even if you try to talk about something else)
Semi-structured interviews: there are some questions that must be asked, but room for natural conversation as well
You'll notice that all interviews suffer from researcher effects: the researcher might give directions to some interviewees through tone or body language or else the interviewees might feel hostile towards or intimidated by some researchers.
QUESTIONNAIRES (Surveys)
Questionnaires aren't conducted face-to-face; even if the researcher is present, they don't communicate with the respondent while they're completing the questionnaire (except perhaps to explain the purpose). Questionnaires involve reading the questions followed by a written response - although the writing might be no more than ticking boxes.
Unlike interviews, questionnaires are always structured - the questions have to be written in advance. However, there are different types of question that can be asked:
There are different types of closed question:
You will have spotted a limitation of questionnaires: only people who can read and write can complete them. If the questionnaires contain complicated language, you might have to be quite educated to complete them properly.
|
|
APPLYING SELF-REPORT METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY
| ||||||||||||||||
|
A particular type of questionnaire used by psychologists is the psychometric test. This is a questionnaire which produces a score to measure a psychological characteristic. A common example is the IQ Test.
Psychometric tests produce quantitative data and often measure several different things at once, like different personality traits. |
Another popular psychometric test on social media. I'm Rapunzel, by the way...
|
There was controversy when Wikipedia published Rorshach's inkblots along with their possible meanings. Does this ruin the validity of the test?
|
A different approach is a projective test. This is more like an interview technique than a questionnaire, because the respondent either describes an image or draws an image of their own. The researcher then interprets what the respondent comes up with. A good example is the Rorschach Test, otherwise known as the "inkblot test". What you think the inkblots look like reveals your inner character. This produces qualitative data and is inspired by Freud's psychodynamic theory.
|
RESEARCHER EFFECTS
The Specification makes a point of directing students to know about researcher effects
Researcher effects are influences that spoil the outcome of the self-report process. They do this because the respondent is actually reacting to some characteristic of the researcher (their appearance, body language or tone) rather than the question itself.
- Researcher effects may make self-reports unreliable if some respondents react to some researcher effects and others don't
- Researcher effects may make self-reports invalid if respondents end up giving answers that aren't true because of the influence of the researcher
The most obvious type of researcher effect is the leading question or helpful body language or tone. A researcher can hint at the answer they are looking for. Some researchers don't even realise they are doing this. A solution is the double-blind technique where the person asking the questions doesn't know the true purpose of the research and can't help the respondents out.
More subtle researcher effects happen when the researcher is attractive or intimidating. Particularly with sensitive topics, this might encourage some participants to be more forthcoming (or exaggerate the truth) and inhibit others, who feel shy or frightened. A solution is to match the researcher to the respondent in terms of age, sex and race.
Interviews suffer from researcher effects more than questionnaires, but this problem affects questionnaires too, especially if the researcher is present when the questionnaire is being filled out. Postal surveys and online questionnaires remove that problem, but there's still a type of researcher effect from just knowing that the survey comes from somewhere prestigious (like a top university) or somewhere that isn't respected (like a political party you don't agree with). This information can be hidden too - but then there are ethical problems with not letting people know whom they are giving their data to.
More subtle researcher effects happen when the researcher is attractive or intimidating. Particularly with sensitive topics, this might encourage some participants to be more forthcoming (or exaggerate the truth) and inhibit others, who feel shy or frightened. A solution is to match the researcher to the respondent in terms of age, sex and race.
Interviews suffer from researcher effects more than questionnaires, but this problem affects questionnaires too, especially if the researcher is present when the questionnaire is being filled out. Postal surveys and online questionnaires remove that problem, but there's still a type of researcher effect from just knowing that the survey comes from somewhere prestigious (like a top university) or somewhere that isn't respected (like a political party you don't agree with). This information can be hidden too - but then there are ethical problems with not letting people know whom they are giving their data to.
SELF-REPORTS IN UNIT 1
Biological Approach
Cognitive Approach
Learning Theories
Social Approach
- Brendgen et al. (2005) gave teachers a questionnaire to measure physical and social aggression
- Freud (1909) organised unstructured interviews with a 5-year-old boy (Little Hans) to explore his phobia of horses
Cognitive Approach
- Schmolck et al. (2002) asked the participants to complete memory tests and interviewed them about their thoughts at the same time. This was an unstructured interview. It was recorded and scored by 14 raters for language problems.
Learning Theories
- Bandura et al. (1961) gave nursery teachers a questionnaire to rate children for aggression
- Becker et al. (2002) used the EAT-26 questionnaire to measure unhealthy attitudes and behaviours involving eating; they also conducted semi-structured interviews on diet and TV-viewing
Social Approach
- Sherif et al. (1954) used psychometric tests to measure the boys' feelings about their friends, their group and the boys in the other group. He also used unstructured interviews to get the boys to talk about their attitudes and he secretly recorded some of these talks.
- Burger (2009) used psychometric tests to measure empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index) and need for control (Desirability of Control Scale)
SELF-REPORTS IN UNIT 2
Clinical Interviews
A clinical interview is a special type of interview made by a medical practitioner (like a doctor or psychiatrist) to assess someone's health. A psychologist might use this to determine if someone is suffering from a mental disorder. This sort of interview is semi-structured, using a lot of open questions. It is designed to get as much (relevant) information from the client as possible to help with diagnosis.
Often the interviewer will complete a checklist after (or during) the interview, to give the client a score for certain mental health characteristics.
A clinical interview is a special type of interview made by a medical practitioner (like a doctor or psychiatrist) to assess someone's health. A psychologist might use this to determine if someone is suffering from a mental disorder. This sort of interview is semi-structured, using a lot of open questions. It is designed to get as much (relevant) information from the client as possible to help with diagnosis.
- Brown et al. (1986) used semi-structured interviews to find out about symptoms of depression, self-esteem, social support and stressful life events
- The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID-5) is a semi-structured interview guide for making DSM-5 diagnoses. PRIME-MD is another checklist, which led to the PHQ (below).
Often the interviewer will complete a checklist after (or during) the interview, to give the client a score for certain mental health characteristics.
- The 8-point General Pathology Index (GPI) was used by Bradshaw to assess the severity of Carol's schizophrenia. The therapist rated Carol at 7 (very severe symptoms) at the start of the study but 1 (very mild symptoms) by the end.
- The Life Events & Difficulties Schedule (LEDS) was used by Brown et al.'s Islington study to rate the severity of stressful life events over the last year
The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
Aaron Beck created the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) in 1961 to measure cognitive factors in depression.
|
This is a 21-question psychometric test that asks about cognitions (hopelessness, irritability, guilt or feelings of being punished) as well as physical symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, and lack of interest in sex. Each question is multiple-choice, with 4 answers to choose from. These are rated 0 to 3 and the overall score is out of 63.
|
|
BDI gives a quantitative score to negative cognitions and lets psychologists statistically analyse depression (such as whether a group of people are responding to treatment). However, turning mood into a score out of 63 is very reductionist.
|
| ||
The Public Health Questionnaire (PHQ)
Kurt Kroenke and Robert Spitzer created the PHQ-9 in 2001 and a 8-question version (PHQ-8) in 2006. The PHQ-8 features in the contemporary study on depression.
|
This is a 8-question psychometric test that asks about cognitions (feeling down, feeling like a failure, inability to concentrate)) as well as physical symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems and poor appetite. Each question is multiple-choice, with 4 answers to choose from. These are rated 0 to 3 and the overall score is out of 24.
|
|
PHQ-8 also gives a quantitative score to negative cognitions and lets psychologists statistically analyse depression. It is shorter and quicker to complete than BDI. Turning mood into a score out of 24 is very reductionist.
|
| ||
|
EVALUATING SELF-REPORT METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY
|
|
Social desirability bias (and it's opposite, the "screw you!" effect described by Phil Banyard) is when the participants let themselves be influenced by the social situation they are in, wanting to impress or alienate the researcher.
A solution to this is to add lie questions. A classic lie question is "Have you ever in your life been late for an appointment?" - since everybody has been late, even through no fault of their own, anyone who answers "No" is lying. Lie questions can be scored to give a lie scale that shows how trustworthy the respondent is. Respondents scoring above a limit might be removed |
Someone who "strongly agrees" with liking their friends and disliking their friends is not answering truthfully (or has complicated relationships...)
|
Interviews have a third validity problem which is researcher effects. This is when the researcher influences the answers given. This could be deliberate (through encouragement or body language) or accidentally (if people are attractive or hostile). Training interviewers reduces this, but adds to the time and expense of the research. Repeating the interview with a different interviewer might reduce this. Researchers often try to make sure the researcher is the same sex and race as the interviewee.
Finally, there are participant variables. Respondents who are articulate (able to speak clearly) will give a lot more quality information in interviews; literate people who can write well will respond to questionnaires (especially with open questions) at length. People who speak a different language or have a dialect that is different from the researcher might not understand the questions - or the researcher might not understand their answers. This is a problem with cross-cultural studies. Interviews can get round this if they are at least semi-structured because the interviewer could rephrase a question or ask the interviewee to clarify their answer.
Finally, there are participant variables. Respondents who are articulate (able to speak clearly) will give a lot more quality information in interviews; literate people who can write well will respond to questionnaires (especially with open questions) at length. People who speak a different language or have a dialect that is different from the researcher might not understand the questions - or the researcher might not understand their answers. This is a problem with cross-cultural studies. Interviews can get round this if they are at least semi-structured because the interviewer could rephrase a question or ask the interviewee to clarify their answer.
Ethics
Ethical researchers show Respect for privacy and dignity. This involves keeping the responses to self-reports confidential: the respondents are not identified by name and cannot be linked back to their data.
To have Integrity, self-reports should be transparent. This means the respondents should not be deceived. Sometimes, this goes against using lie questions or distractor questions to ensure validity. To maintain Integrity, it's good practice to debrief respondents after they have finished the self-report. If they wish, they can have their data removed from the research.
Social Responsibility means making it clear what the self-report is for. Again, debriefing can be used if the validity of the research would be ruined by explaining the self-reports purpose at the start. Some self-reports resemble (or actually are) clinical diagnostic tools. In order to be competent, it's very important researchers make it clear when they are not psychiatrists so that respondents don't believe the self-report has diagnosed them with a real mental condition.
Self-reports don't usually cause Harm, but researchers need to be aware of two concerns if the research is socially-sensitive. First, questions may cause embarrassment or offence (once again, interviews are more ethical here, because the interviewer can rephrase the question if the interviewee is uncomfortable). Second, when surveys are published, the findings can be damaging to vulnerable groups, especially if they inflame prejudice against minorities or add to stereotypes.
Ethical researchers show Respect for privacy and dignity. This involves keeping the responses to self-reports confidential: the respondents are not identified by name and cannot be linked back to their data.
To have Integrity, self-reports should be transparent. This means the respondents should not be deceived. Sometimes, this goes against using lie questions or distractor questions to ensure validity. To maintain Integrity, it's good practice to debrief respondents after they have finished the self-report. If they wish, they can have their data removed from the research.
Social Responsibility means making it clear what the self-report is for. Again, debriefing can be used if the validity of the research would be ruined by explaining the self-reports purpose at the start. Some self-reports resemble (or actually are) clinical diagnostic tools. In order to be competent, it's very important researchers make it clear when they are not psychiatrists so that respondents don't believe the self-report has diagnosed them with a real mental condition.
Self-reports don't usually cause Harm, but researchers need to be aware of two concerns if the research is socially-sensitive. First, questions may cause embarrassment or offence (once again, interviews are more ethical here, because the interviewer can rephrase the question if the interviewee is uncomfortable). Second, when surveys are published, the findings can be damaging to vulnerable groups, especially if they inflame prejudice against minorities or add to stereotypes.
|
EXEMPLAR ESSAY
|