Evaluations

Question 1

Freud

Answer 1

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)

Question 2

Piliavin

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Milgram

Answer 3

Strengths:

• Amount of control
• Both qualitative and quantitative data

Weaknesses:

• Ethics (deceit)
• Inadequate protection
• Unrepresentative sample (androcentric)

Question 4

Reicher and Haslam

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Sperry

Answer 5

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)

Question 6

Dement and Kleitman

Answer 6

Strengths:
- Control

Weaknesses:

• Lack of ecological validity
• Small sample (9)
• Other studies do not support findings of relationship between eye movement and dream content

Question 7

Maguire

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Griffiths

Answer 8

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)

Question 9

Thigpen and Cleckley

Answer 9

S:

• Case study = detail
• Both types of data

W:

• Small sample
• Retrospective
• Bias from close relationship
• Ethical issues (protection)

Question 10

Rosenhan

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Bandura

Answer 11

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)

Question 12

Samuel and Bryant

Answer 12

• Counted the number of counters thus high accuracy could be because of that
• Nerves could lead to more spontaneous responses than thought-through

Question 13

Samuel and Bryant

Answer 13

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)
-