Psychology as a Science (Studies)

Question 1

Sherif et al.

Answer 1

• There was a lack of control in Sherif’s experiment, meaning group formation / hostility may have been caused by external factors and can be considered less scientific (aim and field experiment)
  + Hypothetico-deductive method used to establish cause and effect between in-groups/out-groups and prejudice. Empirical evidence used to judge prejudice (method)
  + Sherif’s observations were triangulated with other methods, increasing the validity of results and therefore the scientific nature of the experiment (methods of data collection - observation, tape recording, etc.)
• Conclusions on prejudice based on subjective observation (so not objective) likely influenced by experimenter bias of expectations regarding behaviour (Sherif’s conclusions)

Question 2

Baddeley

Answer 2

• Low external validity due to testing effect of semantic/acoustic encoding on memory through lists, which do not accurately reflect memory in everyday life. Similarly, demand characteristics possible, suggesting internal validity may be affected, reducing scientific nature as validity has not been thoroughly controlled (aim and through lists)
  + Data gathered was objective (quantitative = no. words remembered) and LTM and STM were effectively operationalised and REDUCED to the no. words recalled in the correct order (part of procedure)
  + Highly controlled lab experiment with demand characteristics reduced, ensuring that only nature of words had effect on ppts’ memory (other part of procedure)
  + Conclusions establish causality from IV of semantic (acoustically/semantically similar/dissimilar words effecting encoding of words, making experiment scientific (findings and conclusions)

Question 3

Raine

Answer 3

+ PET scans are an objective measure, meaning bias does not affect the results of the NGRIs’ scans compared to the control group (aim and method of PET scans)
- Ppts were not randomly assigned to conditions of the IV as they were by nature either murderers or non-murderers, meaning extraneous variables could not be entirely controlled and thus that causality is difficult to identify - difference could be down to biology, history of brain damage, social factors, etc. (natural experient - description of procedure)
+ Highly controlled nature, reducing individual differences which may have influenced scan results - increases scientific nature (procedure - matched NGRIs to control group)
+ Results based on empirical evidence from brain scans and direct observation of brain function (results)

Question 4

Watson and Rayner

Answer 4

• A lack of a control group with which to compare responses reduces validity due to the potential for extraneous variables affecting response to rat- I.D.s NOT CONTROLLED (aim and sample)
  + A control measure which ensured that when Albert did show fear after the loud noise when presented with the rat, this was due to conditioning (description of baseline test)
  + Used empirical testing to determine behaviour before and after conditioning. Also falsified by not observing fear (main body procedure)
• Observation of responses leading to results was subjective in nature - not an objective measure due to qualitative date (Albert’s reaction), reducing scientific standing (conclusions)

Question 5

Rosenhan

Answer 5

• Lacked control due to it being an observation - extraneous variables and individual differences could not be accounted for, e.g. mood of staff may have affected behaviour (sample)
  + Based on empirically observable evidence and direct experience, increasing scientific nature (procedure - pseudopatient observation of behaviour)
• Findings based on pseudopatients’ own interpretations of ‘stopping and chatting’, ‘maintaining eye contact’, etc., and therefore is not objective (procedure)
  + Qualitative data was collected particularly in the second part of the study (e.g. of 193 patients, 41 were confidently identified by at least one staff member as a pseudopatients) - this is an objective measure (findings + conclusions)