Practical issues (studies)

Question 1

Cog: Baddeley (1966b)

Answer 1

G-P-Low
E- Sample (72 male + fem students from APRU Cambridge Uni)
E-W, sample of ppts mayve had more psych knowledge & higher education than gen pop
L- Their knowledge may’ve impacted data, so cant generalise findings on LTM encoding back to wider pop

R-P-High
E- Fully operationalised IV/DV & conditions(SS,AS,AD,SD)
E- S, can allow for study to be replicated to understand LTM encoding, incr test-retest R

V-P-Found confounding variable in exp A which was STM
E- 3rd exp removed CV of STM so knew any changes in data was due to IV
E-S, can establish better cause & effect for semantics & LTM encoding

P-Low int V
E- Volunteer sample +APRU
E- Incr ppts V eg motivation to do well/ share sim characs eg psych knowledge, so decr V of findings
E- Couldve impacted findings on LTM encoding, decr credibility

Question 2

Soc: Sherif et al (1954)

Answer 2

G-P- Low
E-22 11yr boys, Oaklahoma USA
E- W, ethnocentric, androcentric, small age bracket
L-May’ve affected data, less generalisable for larger age brackets, female, international pops to study prejudice

R-P-Low
E-Boys had to make active decisions & were active in the study
E-W, decr test-retest R due to ppts v’s and EVs of certain choices
L- Makes it difficult to replicate study to test for prejudice

Question 3

Bio: Raine et al (1997)

Answer 3

G-P-Low
E- only applies to one type of criminal- NGRI’s, 23 w TBI’s, 6 w Sz, 3 w drug abuse history, 2 w epilsepy
E-W, offender sample may’ve affected the results due to all having same conviction status/ insanity affecting brain areas & aggr results.
L- So findings may not be generalisable back to wider pop to study brain structure as an expl as aggr

R-P-High
E-BSTs- Pet scan scanned images 10x10 mm for 32 mins, 10 mins before FDG they carried out CPT task, 30 secs before FDG real CPT began
E-S, incr test-retest R, standardised proceds so control for EVs
that couldve affected findings
L- So research more reliable to study brain structure affecting aggr

V-P-High int V
E-Matched pairs design for control w NGRI murderers on age, sex, mental illness egg both samples had 6 w Sz
E- S, decr ppt variables so comparisons r more meaningful
L-Incr V of findings to use to study brain structure as an expl of aggr

P-High int V
E-Lab, controlled envir
ppts stopped taking meds 2 weeks prior
E–S, control for EV’s so nothing would’ve affected brain activity in lower subcortical areas, better establish c&e

P-Low (eco V)
E- CPT carried out in an artificial lab at uni California
E- W, not reflective of how brain operates irl

Question 4

LT: Watson & Rayner (1920)

Answer 4

G-P-Low
E-Sample= single ppt LA (9-11 mnths)
E- W, findings may’ve been limited due to individualised sample also LA displayed ‘less emotion than children his age’ which couldve skewed results
L-Not G to wider pop eg large age bracket/ adults etc when studying CC

R-P-High
E - Followed a standardised procedure such as hitting the metal bar every time Albert reached for the rat
E - Incr test-retest R on impact of CC on creating conditioned responses in ppt eg fear
L- S, easy to replicate to study CC

V-P-High
E- Established that fear response wasn’t predisposed in LA by showing white fluffy stim before conditioning- and LA showed no fear response
E-S, can establish better cause & effect for conditioning leading to fear response in LA, incr V of findings
L-S, incr credibility of findings for studying CC so can be applied to future research in CC

P-Low ecological
E - Took place in artificial conditions
E - Unnatural situation of hitting a metal bar when presented with a rat may not reflect learning in real-life
L- W, may not be reflective of how conditioning works irl, less credibility

P-Low
E - No control group meaning it could have been down to a repeated exposure to the animal
E - Therefore cannot establish cause and effect for pairing of CS and UCS to create learnt response of fear in little Albert
L-W,

Question 5

Clinical: Rosenhan (1973)