Experiments Flashcards
Karl Popper (1959)
Logic of scientific discovery
positivist methodology seeks “social facts” - that is, it seeks to uncover the laws of that govern social behaviour - then explain them precisely.
> range of data is collected before being analysed by the researcher - a theory then begins to emerge which explains the data found - this is called “inductive” approach
> Karl Popper rejects this method as it assumes once a theory emerges from data that has been analysed, “facts” are established - to claim something is “factual” is dangerous
> Popper argues that “facts” can be disproven later on
> so he asks social scientists to follow a “deductive” approach - which involves a a sociologist creating a “hypothesis” to make sense of human behaviour, then the hypothesis can be tested (or “falsified) as data is collected and analysed.
> this allows solciologists to keep an open to what direction their research may take; what advances in knowledge emerge and what new evidence emerges.
> Popper claims “laboratory experiments” are the best deductive approach
Laboratory Experiements
Laboratories are “closed settings” - allow scientists to manage and control the exact steps that are taken in conducting research.
> precise predictions can be tested, based upon a hypothesis beforehand.
> sociologists that use this method begin by identifying precisely what it is they would like to explain and make sense of - referred to as the “dependent variable”
> as laboratory allows scientist to oversee their experiement, they can introduce “independent variables” which can influence the “dependent variable” which is the focus of the study.
> a “control group” will also be used, where no independent variables are used - allows sociologist to begin isolating different independent variables to see which have the largest effect.
> this helps the “falsification” process.
> knowledge is never absolute in this way, however the more a hypothesis stands, the more convincing it is.
EVAL - they are reliable as it is possible to repeat the test therefore increasing confidence of the results they find.
EVAL GOOD - sociologist remain in control of the experiment therefore they can precisely observe
EVAL BAD - problems with validity difficuilt to establish if people’s behaviour in an artificial environment is the same as their behaviour in wider society
EVAL BAD - Hawthorne effect - they change their behaviour as they know they are being studied - this prevents true VALIDITY
EVAL BAD - ETHICAL issues - a lack of informed consent, at times researched has failed to obtain consent.
Alberta Bandura (1965)
Imitative aggression: The Bo-Bo Doll
Bandura and colleagues want to explore the effects on children of viewing media images of violence.
> one group of children shown a film of an adult behaving aggressive towards a bobo doll - they see another adult enter room and criticise the adult for being aggressive towards the doll
> another group of children saw the film, but they saw another adult enter and praise the adult for acting aggressive towards the doll
> a third group of children watched the film, but no additional adult entered the room.
> the children were all then allowed to play in a room full of toys including the bobo doll
Bandura found that - the children who saw the adult being criticised for being aggressive were least likely to be aggressive.
eval - provides a good example of a “deductive method” and researchers remain open minded to any evidence of changes.
Stanley Milgram (1974)
involved Milgram lying to his subjects about the purpose of his research, telling them that they were participating in an experiment on learning
>they were told by the researcher to administer electric shocks when learner failed to answer questions correctly
> in reality, Milgram wanted to test people’s willingness to obey authority in inflicting pain.
> 65% of people were prepared to follow orders administering shocks of 450 volts - no actual shocks were administered
EVAL - this can cause harm to participants - some participants seemed to sweat, stutter and trembled when taking part and some developed depression - ETHICAL.
Field experiments
take place in natural surroundings of society, rather than artificial laboratory settings
participants don’t know they are taking part in research
The Pseudo-Patient Experiment
in 1973, a group of 8 sociologists presented themselves at different mental health hospitals in the USA, complaining they heard voices.
> each was assessed and quickly admitted.
> once in hospital, they no longer complained about hearing voices and behaved normally.
> hospital staff treated each patient as though they were still mentally ill
> researchers claimed that this study allowed the testing of hypothesis that being “negatively labelled” defines a person in such a way that they cant escape it
EVAL GOOD - VALIDITY - in natural surroundings therefore everyone acted how they would normally act.
EVAL BAD - ETHICAL PROBLEMS - pretending to be mentally unwell when you are not is not ethical, it also denies other mentally unwell people’s places in hospitals.
EVAL BAD - make it very difficult to control different variables therefore might get findings that are inaccurate.
EVAL BAD - they had trouble getting out of the mental hospital as they could not convince doctors as doctors believed they were “mentally ill”
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)
conducted a fiend experiment at her school in the USA
> teachers were tricked into thinking that their classes had been given an IQ test to identify who would most likely make the most progress that year
> in reality the schools were random assigned to pupils (who knew nothing about experiment)
> a year later evidence showed that pupils who were told they would make the most progress, generally did!
> researchers claimed that this was because of the “power of positive expectations”
EVAL GOOD - positivist sociologists claim that the study provides a great example of how “cause and effect” can be established.
EVAL GOOD - RELIABILITY - easy to repeatedly check findings of the study
EVAL BAD - ETHIC PROBLEM - caused long-term damage to children’s educational success and life chances.
EVAL BAD - PRACTICAL - time consuming - took over a year to complete and wait for findings.
EVAL BAD - ETHIC - lied and deceived the pupils to think they were worse than they are or better then they are, which is unfair on them.
The comparative method
doesn’t take place in a laboratory or in the field.
> instead looks at situations or are still happening in society, without requiring artificiality
> variablea are identified and are then used to measure relationships of cause and effect
Emile Durkheim (1897)
Le Suicide
attempting to understand how suicide could be linked to society, Durkheim looked at how different variables based upon different groups of people, different societies and different periods of time has influence on suicide rates.
> claims to have established cause and effect relationships.
> Durkheim believes his comparative approach proved that suicide, in being influenced by society, is a “social fact”
EVAL GOOD - presents no ethical issues - avoids artificiality we see in laboratory settings.
EVAL GOOD - allows sociologist to study causes of large-scale social change over long periods of time as the study can look at past events.
EVAL BAD - untrustworthy - researcher has little control over variables so we cannot whether a cause and effect relationship has been discovered.
