Advertisement

Quantitative Erhebungsmethoden

  • Gerald Echterhoff
Part of the Springer-Lehrbuch book series (SLB)

Zusammenfassung

Erhebungsmethoden der psychologischen Forschung lassen sich unterteilen in Verfahren des Beobachtens, Zählens und Messens (► Abschn. 2.2), Verfahren des Selbstberichts (► Abschn. 2.3), psychologische Tests (► Abschn. 2.4) sowie biopsychologische bzw. neurowissenschaftliche Messungen (► Abschn. 2.5). Diese Verfahren sind nicht völlig distinkt voneinander, sondern weisen Überschneidungen auf. Beispielsweise spielen Überlegungen zur Qualität einer Messung bei Selbstberichtsverfahren, Tests oder biopsychologischen Verfahren eine Rolle.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Weiterführende Literatur

  1. Myung, J. & Pitt, M. A. (2002). Mathematical modeling. In J. Wixted & H. Pashler (Eds.), Steven’s handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 4, Methodology in experimental psychology, pp. 429–460). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Ratcliff, R. (1998). The role of mathematical psychology in experimental psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Pelham, B., & Blanton, H. (2007). Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight of smoke (3rd ed.).Belmont: Thomson Wadworth.Google Scholar
  4. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. F., Sechrest, L. & Grove, J. B. (1981). Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  5. Michell, J. (1999). Measurement in psychology: Critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Steyer, R. & Eid, M. (2001). Messen und Testen (2. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pelham, B., & Blanton, H. (2007).Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight of smoke (3rd ed.).Belmont: Thomson Wadworth.Google Scholar
  8. Schwarz, N. (1999).Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sudman, S., Bradburn, M. N., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Amelang, M. & Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2006). Psychologische Diagnostik und Intervention (4. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moosbrugger, H. & Kelava, A. (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steyer, R. & Eid, M. (2001). Messen und Testen (2. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Birbaumer, N. & Schmidt, R. F. (2010). Biologische Psychologie (7. Aufl.). Heidelberg: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Birbaumer, N. & Schmidt, R. F. (2010). Biologische Psychologie (7. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jäncke, L. (2005). Methoden der Bildgebung in der Psychologie und den kognitiven Neurowissenschaften. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  16. Schandry, R. (2011). Biologische Psychologie: Ein Lehrbuch (3. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  17. Couper, M. P. (2008). Designing effective Web surveys. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fielding, N., Lee, R. M. & Blank, G. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of online research methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Reips, U. & Postmes, T. (Eds.). (2007). The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Literatur

  1. Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1998). The human amygdala in social judgment.Nature, 393, 470–474.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.),A handbook of social psychology (pp. 798–844). Worchester. MA: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amelang, M., & Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2006).Psychologische Diagnostik und Intervention (4. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amidon, E. J., & Hunter, E. (1967). Verbal interaction in the classroom: The verbal interaction category scheme. In E. J. Amidon, & J. B. Hough (Eds.),Interaction analysis: Theory, research and application (pp. 121–140). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Aster, M., Neubauer, A., & Horn, R. (2006).Wechsler Intelligenztest für Erwachsene (WIE). Deutschsprachige Bearbeitung und Adaptation des WAIS-III von David Wechsler. Frankfurt: Harcourt Test Services.Google Scholar
  7. Bandilla, W. (2002). Web surveys: An appropriate mode of data collection for the social sciences? In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.),Online social sciences (pp. 1–6). Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  8. B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips, & M. Bosnjak (Eds.). (2002).Online social sciences. Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  9. Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,7, 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2000). Psychobiology and social psychology: Past, present, and future.Personality and Social Psychology Review,4, 3–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Birbaumer, N., & Schmidt, R. F. (2010).Biologische Psychologie (7. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology.American Psychologist, 61, 27–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993).NEO Fünf Faktoren Inventar nach Costa und McCrea (NEO-FFI). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  14. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006).Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation (4. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brand, M., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2006). Hirnforschung und Psychotherapie.Psychotherapie Forum, 14, 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brand, M., Grabenhorst, F., Starcke, K., Vandekerckhove, M. M. P., & Markowitsch, H. J. (2007). Role of the amygdala in decisions under ambiguity and decisions under risk: Evidence from patients with Urbach- Wiethe disease.Neuropsychologia,45, 1305–1317.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brickenkamp, R. (2002).d2– Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test (9. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  18. Buchanan, T., Johnson, J. A., & Goldberg. L. R. (2005). Implementing a five-factor personality inventory for use on the Internet.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cacioppo, J. T. (2002). Social neuroscience: Understanding the pieces fosters understanding the whole.American Psychologist, 57, 819–831.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory. Professional Manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  22. Couper, M. P. (2008).Designing effective Web surveys. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964).The approval motive. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Damasio, A. (1994).Descartes’ error. New York: G. P. Puntam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Döring, N. (2000). Selbsthilfe, Beratung und Therapie im Internet. In B. Batinic (Hrsg.),Internet für Psychologen (S. 509–548). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  27. Echterhoff, G., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2006). »Social Robotics« und Mensch-Maschine Interaktion: Aktuelle Forschung und Relevanz für die Sozialpsychologie.Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Henson, A. (1972). The stare as a stimulus to flight in human subjects: A series of field experiments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 302–311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000).Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R., & Selg, H. (1994).Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar FPI, Revidierte Fassung FPI-R (6. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  31. N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.). (2008).The Sage handbook of online research methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Grell, J. (1980).Techniken des Lehrerverhaltens. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  34. Gulliksen, H. (1950).Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C., & Ehlert, U. (2003). Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress.Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1389–1398.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 62–135.Google Scholar
  37. Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception.Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hussy, W., & Jain, A. (2002).Experimentelle Hypothesenprüfung in der Psychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  39. Iacoboni, M. (2008).Mirroring people: The new science of how we connect with others. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
  40. Jäncke, L. (2005).Methoden der Bildgebung in der Psychologie und den kognitiven Neurowissenschaften. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  41. A. Joinson, K. McKenna, U. Reips, & T. Postmes (Eds.). (2007).The Oxford handbook of Internet Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Joinson, A. N., Woodley, A., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Personalization, authentication and self-disclosure in self-administered Internet surveys.Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory.Science, 154, 1583–1585.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kraut, R., Olson, J., Banaji, M., Bruckman, A., Cohen, J., & Couper, M. (2004). Psychological research online: Report of board of scientific affairs’ advisory group on the conduct of research on the Internet.American Psychologist, 59, 105–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Luhmann, N. (1995).Was ist Kommunikation? (Soziologische Aufklärung. , Bd. 6, S. 113–124). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Mangan, M., & Reips, U.-D. (2007). Sleep, sex, and the Web: Surveying the difficult-to-reach clinical population suffering from sexsomnia.Behavior Research Methods, 39, 233–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Markowitsch, H. J. (2004). Warum wir keinen freien Willen haben.Psychologische Rundschau, 55, 163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Metzinger, T. (2003).Being no one: The self-model theory of subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2012).Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (2. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murray, H. A. (1943).Thematic Apperception Test: Manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Musch, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2002). In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.),Online social sciences (pp. 181–212). Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  53. Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers.Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neisser, U. (1979).Kognition und Wirklichkeit. Stuttgart: Klett.Google Scholar
  55. Neumann, R., Hess, M., Schulz, S. M., & Alpers, G. W. (2005). Automatic behavioural responses to valence: Evidence that facial action is facilitated by evaluative processing.Cognition and Emotion, 19(4), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site.Group Dynamics, 6, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957).The measurement of meaning. Urbana: Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  58. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk.Judgments and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.Google Scholar
  59. Pelham, B., & Blanton, H. (2007).Conducting research in psychology: Measuring the weight of smoke (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadworth.Google Scholar
  60. Rasch, G. (1980).Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Reips, U.-D. (2002). Theory and technique of conducting Web experiments. In B. Batinic, U.-D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds.),Online social sciences (pp. 229–250). Kirkland, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  62. Reips, U.-D. (2005). Datenautobahn nutzen: Formen der internetgestützten Datenerhebung.Psychoscope, 8, 5–8.Google Scholar
  63. Rodgers, J., Buchanan, T., Scholey, A. B., Heffernan, T. M., Ling, J., & Parrott, A. C. (2001). Differential effects of Ecstasy and cannabis on self-reports of memory ability: A Web-based study.Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 16, 619–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, J. (1939).Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schandry, R. (2011).Biologische Psychologie: Ein Lehrbuch (3. Aufl.). Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  66. Schwarz, N. (1999).Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.American Psychologist, 54, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steyer, R., & Eid, M. (2001).Messen und Testen (2. Aufl.). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strack, F., & Martin, L. L. (1987). Thinking, judging, and communicating: A process account of context effects in attitude surveys. In H. J. Hippler, N. Schwarz, & S. Sudman (Eds.),Social information processing and survey methodology (pp. 123–148). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sudman, S., Bradburn, M. N., & Schwarz, N. (1996).Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  70. Tewes, U. (1991).Hamburg-Wechsler-Intelligenztest für Erwachsene (HAWIE-R), Revision 1991. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  71. Turner, C. W., Simons, L. S., Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1977). The stimulating and inhibiting effects of weapons on aggressive behavior.Aggressive Behavior, 3, 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Warner, S. L. (1965). Randomized responses: A survey technique for eliminating evasive answers.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 60, 63–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Watts, D. J. (2003).Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  74. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J. B. (1981).Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  75. Weishaupt, D., Köchli, V. D., & Marincek, B. (2006).Wie funktioniert MRI? Eine Einführung in Physik und Funktionsweise der Magnetresonanzbildgebung (5. Aufl.). Heidelberg: SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Echterhoff

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations