field experiment

Question 1

field experiment

Answer 1

set in a real life setting

Question 2

case study’s

Answer 2

Rosenthal and Jacobson
Rosenhan

Question 3

Rosenthal and jacobson

Answer 3

Studied in a classroom in 1960s – IQ tested a class of pupils.
Randomly tested IQ on students and told teachers covertly that some were “spurters”.
Returned a year later & found the ‘spurters’ had made the most progress.
Concluded that the teacher had labelled the pupils positively, interacted with them positively and encouraged them as a result a self-fulfilling prophecy had occurred.

Question 4

Rosenhan

Answer 4

Rosenhan’s (1973) ‘pseudopatient’ (fake-patient) experiment conducted in 12 California mental health hospitals.
Each pseudopatient said they had been hearing voices and were admitted into the hospitals having been diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
Once in hospital they stopped complaining of hearing voices.
Nevertheless, hospital staff treated them all as if they were still suffering from Schizophrenia.
This suggested that it was not the patients’ behaviour that led to them being treated as sick, but the label ‘schizophrenic’ itself that led staff to treat them this way.

Question 5

field experiment practical advantage

Answer 5

Natural, real life environment rather than being in an artificial/fake lab setting, therefore you are more likely to gain valid data. E.g. Rosenhan’s study · Easier to gain access to natural environment, e.g. easier for a headteacher to give permission.

Question 6

field experiment practical disadvantage

Answer 6

Complex problems cannot be studied · Less control in comparison to a lab experiment due to being in a natural environment. · Difficult to control extraneous variables - the more realistic we make the situation, the less control we have over the variables. If so, we cannot be certain that the causes we have identified are the correct ones.

Question 7

field experiment ethical advantage

Answer 7

Debrief – you can get over the ethical limitations by debriefing. · Limiting Harm – After the study, explaining to participants the nature of the study to reduce harm · Supporters of Milgram argue his experiment can be justified ethically because they alert us to the dangers of blindly obeying authority figures. · The great majority of his participants (74%) said afterwards that they had learned something of lasting value.

Question 8

field experiment ethical disadvantage

Answer 8

Informed consent may not always be gained – they usually involve carrying out a field experiment on participants without their knowledge or consent. · Deception – participants are lied to during the study. E.g. Rosenthal & Jacobson’s study where teachers were lied to about who the ‘spurters’ were. This could have hindered the performance of the actual ‘spurturs’, therefore it is morally wrong to tamper with a child’s education.

Question 9

field experiment theoretical advantage

Answer 9

· Positivists favour as it’s in a natural, valid & realistic environment (less artificiality compared to a lab experiment) so you can generalise easier. · Reliable – some structure so easy to repeat (but not as much as a lab experiment). · Validity – participants are not always aware they are part of a study (no Hawthorne effect) - so can establish cause and effect between positive labelling + achievement e.g. Rosenthal & Jacobson. · Can investigate labels and the impact they have e.g. Rosenhan (the impact of the label mental health patient).

Question 10

field experiment theoretical disadvantage

Answer 10

Interpretivists dislike as it lacks verstehen and depth so you can’t establish cause and effect as there are extraneous variables (outside factors) which could have affected the experiment. · The more realistic we make the situation, the less control we have over variables. These extraneous variables cannot be controlled like within a lab experiment. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the causes we have identified are the correct ones, or are affected by the extraneous variables.