Ckassic Studies Psychology As A Science

Question 1

Sherif et al

Answer 1

• validity was increased by the matched pairs design where the boys were matched to sporting ability and IQ
• the reliability was limited due to it being a field experiment so confounding variables were hard to control, which also reduces internal validity
• was not a generalisable sample with 22,11yo boys
• reductionist as reduced the cause of aggression down to conflict which increases the scientific credibility to the findings

Question 2

Baddley

Answer 2

• high internal validity due to well controlled procedure in a lab enviroment
• however lab reduces ecological validity
• reductionist as reduced memory encoding down to a list of 10 words
• low task validity as learning list of 10 words
• the measurements of memory recall was objective and measures by number of words recalled
• reliable as standardised procedure e.g words left of screen for same amount of time

Question 3

Raine et al

Answer 3

• objective and internal validity with pet scan
• reduced aggression down to brain activity or lack of
• lacks ecological validity as lab based experiment
• standardised procedures e.g same 10 minute stimulatory task beforehand
• high control variables increased internal validity e.g no medication 2 weeks prior to the scan

Question 4

Watson and Rayner

Answer 4

• controlled variables increased the reliability as reduced the likelihood of being influenced by another stimulus
• not representative sample, one individual chosen for his robust nature
• reduced the learning of phobias down to one theory (CC)
• study was filmed so high interest rater reliability as the observations can be compared with multiple researchers
• lacks ecological and task validity

Question 5

Rosenhan

Answer 5

• low validity as only one person per hospital - no way to establish weather data from each person is reliable
• well controlled procedure as all pp said the same symptoms “empty hollow thud”
• high ecological validity as pp were not aware they were pseudopatients
• lacked validity as the results may have been skewed due to bias and the p patients were supporters of rosenhan
• not generalisable as only 8 pseudopatients form clinics in North America