Free SACE Psychology Flashcard Review

It examines biological processes, psychological processes and sociocultural context, including interactions among them. It does not require every level to contribute equally, and it avoids declaring one level sufficient when the evidence supports multiple influences.

Biological arousal or sleep loss, psychological threat appraisals and coping, and sociocultural expectations or support may all contribute. A strong answer links the levels, such as family pressure increasing worry that then disrupts sleep.

One factor can change the effect of another. For example, social support may alter coping with pain, while prolonged stress can affect sleep and arousal; listing three independent causes misses these possible relations.

It explains a complex phenomenon mainly at one level, such as biology alone. Reduction can aid focused testing, but a conclusion should acknowledge omitted psychological or social influences when they could change the phenomenon.

It prompts investigators to examine norms, identity, history, access and power alongside individual and biological factors. This reduces the risk of treating one cultural group’s behaviour as a universal standard or a personal deficit.

The investigator manipulates an independent variable and measures its effect on a dependent variable under controlled conditions. This supports causal inference when confounds are controlled; merely comparing existing groups is not manipulation.

It records behaviour or self-report without deliberately manipulating the proposed cause. Observation can preserve natural context and study variables that cannot be assigned, but alternative explanations usually limit causal claims.

It explores meaning, experience or reasoning in depth using material such as interviews, focus groups or Delphi responses. Analysis should document sampling, coding and researcher interpretation rather than treating themes as self-evident facts.

Match the design to the question, feasibility and ethics. Use an experiment for a manipulable causal question, observation for naturally occurring relations, and qualitative methods when the detail and meaning of experience are central.

The independent variable is manipulated to create conditions; the dependent variable is the measured outcome. Both should be operationally defined so another investigator can identify exactly what changed and what was recorded.

An extraneous variable is any uncontrolled influence on the outcome. It becomes a confound when it varies systematically with the independent variable, providing a rival explanation for the difference between conditions.

It states the observable procedure used to manipulate or measure a construct. Defining concentration as correct responses during a ten-minute task is more testable than saying participants were simply more focused.

Keeping relevant features such as instructions, time and equipment consistent prevents them from differing with condition. Control strengthens internal validity, although excessive control can make a setting less representative of everyday behaviour.

It predicts how an operational dependent variable will differ with the independent variable and names the expected direction. It should be testable and avoid claiming every participant must show the group-level pattern.

It assigns participants to conditions by chance, reducing systematic pre-existing group differences. It does not make volunteers representative of a population; that issue concerns sampling rather than allocation.

Independent groups use different participants in each condition, while repeated measures expose the same participants to all conditions. Repeated measures controls participant differences but can create order, fatigue or carryover effects.

Consistent instructions, timing and measurement reduce unintended differences between participants or conditions. Standardisation improves comparability, but a script that cues the hypothesis can still create demand characteristics.

A small trial can expose ambiguous instructions, impractical timing, floor or ceiling effects and distress not anticipated in planning. Piloting guides revision but does not replace the intended sample or ethical oversight.

Objective data depend less on personal interpretation, such as a timed response or predefined count. Subjective data include ratings or experiences reported by a person; they can be valid evidence when their limits are recognised.

Quantitative data are numerical and support calculation or statistical comparison. Qualitative data retain words, meanings or categories; they can reveal context that a total score misses but require a transparent interpretive method.