Describe The Main Outcomes Gained From Quantitative Methods

Describe The Main Outcomes That Can Be Gained From Quantitative Resear

Describe the main outcomes that can be gained from quantitative research as opposed to qualitative research. Describe the limitations of both quantitative and qualitative research. From your textbook: pp. 26-27, Questions 1.25 and 1.26 Consumer recycling behavior. Under what conditions will consumers dispose of recyclable paper in the garbage?

Paper For Above instruction

Quantitative research yields measurable and numerical outcomes that facilitate statistical analysis, enabling researchers to identify patterns, relationships, and generalizable findings across populations. The primary outcomes from quantitative research include statistical summaries such as means, medians, frequencies, and percentages, as well as inferential statistics like correlations, regressions, and hypothesis tests. These outcomes can establish the strength and significance of relationships between variables, allowing researchers to make predictions or generalize results from a sample to a broader population.

In contrast, qualitative research produces rich, descriptive outcomes that provide in-depth insights into perceptions, motivations, and behaviors. The main outcomes include thematic patterns, narratives, and categorizations that help understand complex phenomena that are not easily quantifiable. Qualitative outcomes often involve detailed descriptions and contextual understandings, which contribute to theory development and exploratory analysis.

Despite their strengths, both approaches have inherent limitations. Quantitative research may oversimplify complex social phenomena by reducing them to variables and numerical data, potentially missing nuanced contextual factors and meaning. It often relies on structured instruments like surveys, which can constrain participant expression and lead to surface-level insights. Furthermore, statistical correlations do not establish causality, and the quality of the data depends heavily on measurement validity and reliability.

Qualitative research, while valuable for exploring deep insights, faces challenges in terms of subjectivity, potential researcher bias, and limited generalizability. Small sample sizes and non-random sampling methods reduce representativeness, making it difficult to extend findings to larger populations. Additionally, the interpretive nature of qualitative analysis requires rigorous validation to ensure credibility and dependability of results.

Regarding the consumer recycling behavior study (pp. 26-27, Questions 1.25 and 1.26), the researchers conducted an experiment to observe under what conditions consumers are more likely to recycle paper rather than dispose of it as trash. The study employed an experimental design where participants' behaviors were observed after being subjected to different instructions (list uses of paper versus detailed TV shows), and their disposal choices were recorded. The outcomes indicated that 68% of students in the 'usefulness is salient' condition recycled paper, compared to 37% in the control condition. These results suggest that making the usefulness of recycling salient influences recycling behavior positively, which can be generalized to broader populations under similar conditions.

Analysis of Study Design

This study exemplifies a designed experiment because the researchers manipulated an independent variable—whether the usefulness of paper is made salient—and observed its effect on the dependent variable—whether participants recycled or disposed of the paper. The random assignment of participants to different conditions helps establish causal inference, which is characteristic of experimental research.

The experimental unit in this study is each individual participant—the college student who performed the task and made the disposal decision. The variables measured include the condition (usefulness salient vs. control), which is an independent variable, and the disposal choice (recycle or trash), which is a dependent variable.

The variables produce different data types. The condition variable (usefulness salient vs. control) is qualitative (categorical) because it classifies participants into groups. The disposal choice produces qualitative data (e.g., recycled or trash). However, percentages reported (68% vs. 37%) reflect the proportion of participants engaging in a specific outcome within each group, which are descriptive statistics derived from categorical data.

Inferences from the Results

The observed difference—68% recycling in the usefulness salient condition versus 37% in the control—suggests that making the usefulness of recycling salient increases the likelihood of recycling among college students. Assuming the sample is representative of the population of college students, a reasonable inference is that similar conditions will promote recycling behaviors broadly within this demographic. However, caution is necessary when generalizing beyond the sample, especially considering variability in cultural, environmental, and individual factors that influence recycling behavior in different contexts.

Therefore, this study provides evidence supporting targeted interventions that emphasize the usefulness of recycling as strategies to enhance sustainable behaviors among young adults in educational settings and beyond.

Drafting NFL Quarterbacks Study

The NFL draft study collected data over 38 years on 331 quarterbacks and analyzed relationships between draft position, quarterback productivity, and team performance. The experimental units in this study are the individual quarterbacks, and the measured variables include draft position (categorical: top 10, picks 11-50, after 50), NFL winning ratio (quantitative: percentage of wins), and quarterback production score (quantitative: productivity measure). This data can be used to project future quarterback performance, which is an inferential statistical application, aiming to generalize findings from the sample to predict the performance of future drafted quarterbacks and inform draft strategies.

Application of the Prisoner’s Dilemma Study

The prisoner’s dilemma experiment involved college students playing repeated games to analyze cooperation, defection, and punishment behaviors. The data collected—average payoffs and punishment frequency—are quantitative and can be visualized via scattergrams. If the scatterplot shows a negative or no correlation between punishment use and average payoff, it supports the conclusion that winners do not necessarily punish, aligning with the researchers’ findings that winners tend not to punish others to maintain status or payoff. A scattergram would illustrate the relationship, indicating whether punishment correlates with higher or lower payoffs.

Age Discrimination Data Analysis

The age discrimination case involves analyzing the ages of laid off versus retained employees. The units are individual employees, and variables include age (quantitative) and layoff status (categorical: laid off or not). This data can be used to assess whether the layoffs disproportionately affected workers aged 40 or over, revealing potential disparate impact. Statistical tests such as chi-square or t-tests can be employed to analyze whether the differences in age distributions between laid off and retained groups are statistically significant, thereby evaluating the likelihood of age discrimination claims.

References

• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
• Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Pearson.
• Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd.
• Babbie, E. (2016). The Practice of Social Research. Cengage Learning.
• Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research. Wiley.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Power. Houghton Mifflin.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications.
• Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Addison-Wesley.
• Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
• Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin.