Contrast two research methods used to investigate the individual and the group
Research methods are tools used by psychologists to gather data on mental processes and human
behaviour. When investigating the individual and the group, laboratory experiments and interviews are
examples of research methods used. Laboratory experiments manipulate an independent variable in order
to assess its effect on a dependent variable and are highly controlled. On the contrary, interviews gather
verbal data through interactions between the researcher and participant. A laboratory experiment and
interviews were used to study Social Identity Theory (SIT) by the studies of Tajfel et al (1971) and
Howarth (2002). SIT explains how individuals view themselves in relation to groups and demonstrates
how people tend to form in-groups and out-groups, resulting in discrimination. Though both studies
investigated SIT, the researchers took different approaches as to how they decided to collect data. I will be
contrasting the two different research methods, laboratory experiments and interviews, using the two
studies aforementioned. I will specifically look at how the research methods differ in terms of how data is
collected and to the degree variables are controlled.
Tajfel et al. (1971) aimed to investigate SIT and specifically social categorization with the research
method of a laboratory experiment. 48, fourteen to fifteen year-old boys from a British school were
sampled and asked to rate 12 paintings and decide on which artist they preferred - Klee or Kandinsky.
Then, they were randomly allocated to two groups and were told the groups were formed based on people
preference - in reality, the participants were randomly allocated to either one of the two groups. The
participants were asked to allocate points to their in-group and out-group and did this individually. It was
found that participants allocated more points to their in-group and less to their out-group, which supports
SIT.
Howarth 2002 aimed to investigate how social representations can have an impact on self-esteem and
identity with the research method of interviews. 44 participants (based on friendship) were sampled and
split into eight focus group interviews. These participants were asked about their views on Brixton as a
district. Further, five interviews were conducted with the head teachers of the secondary schools in
Brixton. These participants were asked what it was like living in Brixton. All participants were asked to
discuss racism, inclusion and exclusion. It was found that people living inside Brixton has a positive view
of the area, describing the people as “vibrant, diverse and creative.” On the other hand, people from
outside of Brixton has a more negative outlook on the area. This study therefore also supports SIT.
Laboratory experiments and interviews collect data differently. Laboratory experiments tend to collect
data in the form of numbers, making the data quantitative, while interviews collect verbal data, making
the data qualitative. Researchers tend to use numerical values obtained from laboratory experiments in
order to draw conclusions about hypotheses. The numerical values are statistically analyzed by testing for
statistical significance, meaning that the researchers determine whether the results from two different
conditions differ greatly. With statistical significance, the researcher can confirm their observation.
Controversially, interviews gather the insights, thinking and emotions of participants through verbal
communication. Here, there is more researcher-participant interaction and the researcher tend to jot down
notes on the thoughts expressed by the participants that are later analyzed. In the study of Tajfel et al.
(1971), the researchers were able to study favouritism among in-groups and out-groups, as the number of
points allocated to the in-group and out-group determined how each participant felt about the other group
Research methods are tools used by psychologists to gather data on mental processes and human
behaviour. When investigating the individual and the group, laboratory experiments and interviews are
examples of research methods used. Laboratory experiments manipulate an independent variable in order
to assess its effect on a dependent variable and are highly controlled. On the contrary, interviews gather
verbal data through interactions between the researcher and participant. A laboratory experiment and
interviews were used to study Social Identity Theory (SIT) by the studies of Tajfel et al (1971) and
Howarth (2002). SIT explains how individuals view themselves in relation to groups and demonstrates
how people tend to form in-groups and out-groups, resulting in discrimination. Though both studies
investigated SIT, the researchers took different approaches as to how they decided to collect data. I will be
contrasting the two different research methods, laboratory experiments and interviews, using the two
studies aforementioned. I will specifically look at how the research methods differ in terms of how data is
collected and to the degree variables are controlled.
Tajfel et al. (1971) aimed to investigate SIT and specifically social categorization with the research
method of a laboratory experiment. 48, fourteen to fifteen year-old boys from a British school were
sampled and asked to rate 12 paintings and decide on which artist they preferred - Klee or Kandinsky.
Then, they were randomly allocated to two groups and were told the groups were formed based on people
preference - in reality, the participants were randomly allocated to either one of the two groups. The
participants were asked to allocate points to their in-group and out-group and did this individually. It was
found that participants allocated more points to their in-group and less to their out-group, which supports
SIT.
Howarth 2002 aimed to investigate how social representations can have an impact on self-esteem and
identity with the research method of interviews. 44 participants (based on friendship) were sampled and
split into eight focus group interviews. These participants were asked about their views on Brixton as a
district. Further, five interviews were conducted with the head teachers of the secondary schools in
Brixton. These participants were asked what it was like living in Brixton. All participants were asked to
discuss racism, inclusion and exclusion. It was found that people living inside Brixton has a positive view
of the area, describing the people as “vibrant, diverse and creative.” On the other hand, people from
outside of Brixton has a more negative outlook on the area. This study therefore also supports SIT.
Laboratory experiments and interviews collect data differently. Laboratory experiments tend to collect
data in the form of numbers, making the data quantitative, while interviews collect verbal data, making
the data qualitative. Researchers tend to use numerical values obtained from laboratory experiments in
order to draw conclusions about hypotheses. The numerical values are statistically analyzed by testing for
statistical significance, meaning that the researchers determine whether the results from two different
conditions differ greatly. With statistical significance, the researcher can confirm their observation.
Controversially, interviews gather the insights, thinking and emotions of participants through verbal
communication. Here, there is more researcher-participant interaction and the researcher tend to jot down
notes on the thoughts expressed by the participants that are later analyzed. In the study of Tajfel et al.
(1971), the researchers were able to study favouritism among in-groups and out-groups, as the number of
points allocated to the in-group and out-group determined how each participant felt about the other group
