Evaluations Flashcards
1
Q
Freud
A
Strengths:
- Case studies useful in revealing + treating abnormal behaviours bc. long period of time
- Relationship between H + father reveals lots more info thus data = more valid
Weaknesses:
- Small sample thus can’t generalise
- Freud’s interpretation of father’s interpretation thus less objective bc. father believed in Freud’s concepts; biased
- Leading qs = demand characteristics (thus less accurate)
2
Q
Piliavin
A
Strengths:
- High in ecological validity
- Large sample size thus results can be generalised to all New Yorkers
Weaknesses:
- Ethics (deceit; consent)
- Lack of control over confounding variables
3
Q
Milgram
A
Strengths:
- Amount of control
- Both qualitative and quantitative data
Weaknesses:
- Ethics (deceit)
- Inadequate protection
- Unrepresentative sample (androcentric)
4
Q
Reicher and Haslam
A
Strengths:
- High control (all 15 similar mentally & physically)
- Full consent & screened beforehand for protection
Weaknesses:
- Aware of observation thus demand characteristics? (invalidity) but couldn’t fake for such a long time
- No real inequalities of resources and power
- Androcentric sample thus unrepresentative and can’t be generalised to women
5
Q
Sperry
A
Strengths:
- Mixture of quasi and case study
- Combined qual. and quant. data
- Reliable
Weaknesses:
- Small sample
- Some patients more deconnected than others
- Valid control group could have been epileptics without deconnection
- Lack ecological validity (person would usually have use of both eyes moving)
6
Q
Dement and Kleitman
A
Strengths:
- Control
Weaknesses:
- Lack of ecological validity
- Small sample (9)
- Other studies do not support findings of relationship between eye movement and dream content
7
Q
Maguire
A
Strenghts:
- Correlational analysis shows a strong positive link
- MRI - quant. data
- Lack of demand characteristics
- Ethically sound (consent)
- Many controls
Weaknesses:
- Hard to conclude from quasi experiments
- Not ecologically valid (MRI)
- MRI = costly
- All male sample
8
Q
Griffiths
A
S:
- Lots of data collected of both types
- Useful way of assessing private thoughts
- Ecological validity
W:
- Issue w/ inter-rater reliability of coding scheme
- Demand characteristics
- Unrepresentative sample (volunteer/snowball)
9
Q
Thigpen and Cleckley
A
S:
- Case study = detail
- Both types of data
W:
- Small sample
- Retrospective
- Bias from close relationship
- Ethical issues (protection)
10
Q
Rosenhan
A
S;
- Participant observation = experience from patient’s perspective
- Field experiment = ecologically valid
- Range of hospitals = generalised results
W:
- Ethics (deceived)
- Too harsh as better for hospitals to make type 2 error
11
Q
Bandura
A
S:
- Control over variables
- Standardised procedure thus replicable
- Quant. data
W:
- Lack of ecological validity
- snapshot study
- behaviour could just have been play bc they knew there was no consequences
- unethical (no protection)
12
Q
Samuel and Bryant
A
- Counted the number of counters thus high accuracy could be because of that
- Nerves could lead to more spontaneous responses than thought-through
13
Q
Samuel and Bryant
A
S:
- Longitudinal case study = lots of data
- High in ecological validity bc. freedom of movement but not natural environment
- Rigourous data collection means less likely to be biased
- Both types of data
W:
- Ethics (lack of protect/withdrawal)
-