Psychology 9990 Paper 1 (Strengths and Weaknesses)

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Schachter and Singer (1962)

- Strength: Standardised procedure (set order of stooge's actions, what the doctor said and did, what the experimenter said and did, how observations were made and categorised, etc.) - Strength: High inter-observer reliability (88% Euphoria, 71% Anger). Participants did not know that they were being observed, therefore behaviour more likely to be representative (lack of demand characteristics) - Weakness: The study lacks ecological validity because it took place in a laboratory and the ppts. were randomly injected with adrenaline. - Weakness: The ppts. were deceived by the researchers as they were told that the study was about the vitamin 'suproxin' and its effects on vision.

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Bandura et al. (1961)

- Strength: The study was a laboratory experiment. A laboratory experiment is where there is an IV, a DV and strict controls. this means that it was possible to control extraneous varaibles such as ensuring that the children in any condition would show aggresive behaviour - Strength: Validity was present in the study. Validity is the extent the researcher is testing what they claim to be testing. All children in both experimental groups saw a model for the same length of time and behaviour was standardised. making sure diff in results were due to diff in models - Weakness: 72 children, with 36 boys and girls each, being aged 3 to 6 years old so it lacks application and is not generalisable to the general population - Weakness: Ethics are strict guidelines for proper and responsible behaviours. Some children might have been harmed by becoming more aggressive (lack of physical and physiological protection)

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Pepperberg (1987)

- Strength: The trainer who trained Alex on the same/ different task, had never done so before. This also means that demand characteristics were limited - Strength: Quantitative data was collected which allows us to objectively analyse whether Alex could think abstractly - Weakness: Alex was a lab parrot. This makes generalisation difficult because he is not representative of the general population of parrots - Weakness: Alex suffered from boredom (which is why they switched up his tasks). This species is prone to self-injurious behavior when bored

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Laney et al. (2008)

- Strength: Very replicable due to standardized procedure, meaning investigation can be repeated for higher reliability - Strength: Quantitative data is objective and unbiased, hence the high validity of the experiment - Weakness: Lab environment and questionnaire is not representative of real life, hence low ecological validity - Weakness: Not generalisable as participants were all from same university and mostly female (gynocentric but not that much at 77% females only with a mean age of 20.8 years in experiment 1 and 62% females only with a mean age of 19.9 in experiment 2)

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Andrade (2009)

- Strength: A laboratory experiment is where there is an IV, a DV and strict controls. It looks for a causal relationship and is conducted in a setting that is not in the usual environment for the participants (no distractions). Hence all participants were listening at a volume comfortable for them and using a recorded telophone message so there was no difference in the stress of words - Strength: Controls to keep extraneous variables constant in b/w the IV. such as the researcher saying the standardised rules, length of tape the researcher can be confident it was the doodling that was causing a change accurate since all participants listened in a dull, quiet room so they could make sure the differences in results between conditions were due to doodling or not - Weakness: Ethics are strict guidelines for proper and responsible behaviors. The participants were unable to give fully informed consent as they were given an unexpected test. This could also cause them distress exposing them to harm - Weakness: Generalisability is the ability to apply the findings to other people. The participants were all members of a recruitment panel and the kinds of people who volunteer may be all similar. Such as having time to spare or interest in psychology - Weakness: Low ecological validity - Weakness:

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Milgram (1963)

- Strength: A laboratory experiment was used meaning high levels of control are possible. Milgram ensured that each participant had exactly the same experience, for example the verbal prods the experimenter gave were written down. Another factor he controlled was what the ppts. heard from Mr Wallace - Strength: Research evidence to support Milgram's findings. Slater et al. replicated Milgram's experiment but in a more ethical way using an avatar as the learner. Teachers knew the stranger and shocks were not real. However they interacted with the avatar the way they would with a real person e.g when she objected to the procedure the teachers turned to the experimenter for guidance. 26/40 of people went to 450v - Weakness: It lacks ecological validity because it is a laboratory experiment that would not occur in everyday life. Someone will never be asked to electrocute someone they've never met before. It also lacks internal validity because the participants might have known they were not really shocking someone - Weakness: Deception was broken because ppts. were told it was an experiment into memory rather than obedience which it was. Protection from psychological harm was broken by some participants suffering from seizures

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Dement and Kleitman (1957)

- Strength: Ethics (e.g. right to withdraw, confidentiality). - Strength: Validity (high levels of control by the experimenters and quantitative and qualitative results were collected). - Weakness: Self-reporting (ppts. may have been woken up in a time they did not want to be woken up and simply said they didn't have a dream and went to sleep). - Weakness: Small sample (9 ppts. total, 7 males and 2 females, a total of 5 ppts. studied in full so may lack generalisability).

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)

- Strength: Experiment was standardised in a way that every participant was tested in the same way. The use of standardised procedures in the way that the photographs were presented ensured that the researchers could claim with some certainty that the independent variable which is the characteristics of Autism was causing the Dependent Variable which was the eyes task - Strength: Control of variables. Variables were controlled such as intelligence, sex and developmental disorders. The researchers were able to ensure that the differences between the scores of the three groups of participants were something to do with being Autistic - Weakness: Ecological validity (Some of the Participants were tested at a lab at a university and this strange situation may have had an affect on performance. The Eye Task can be questioned as it is an unusual task which is much simpler than the demands of real life situations where stimuli are not static) - Weakness: Validity of Eyes Task can be questioned. Eye task may not be measuring theory of mind

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Piliavin et al. (1969)

- Strength: Field experiment (High ecological validity and it's a natural setting for behaviour) - Strength: Both quantitative and qualitative data collected - Weakness: Difficult to replicate as the sample were opportunity ppts. so the study may go out differently each replication - Weakness: Observational study (unethical as the ppts. did not consent to being in the study and were unaware of even being in the study [deception])

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Canli et al. (2002)

- Strength: Quantitative data hence the lack of bias/demand characteristics, objectivity and high validity - Strength: Use of randomisation to reduce order effects, increasing validity - Weakness: Small sample size (10 volunteers) and also all right handed females, meaning it is gynocentric and has low generalisability - Weakness: Lab experiment so there is an unnatural environment and stimuli in this case, meaning there is low ecological validity

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Yamamoto et al. (2012)

- Strength: Repeated measures design (Chimpanzees participated in both or all the conditions of the study. This reduced any risk of individual differences and increased validity) - Strength: Ethics (Study was approved by the Animal Care Committee of the Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University. Chimpanzee's were tested and care for in accordance with the guide produced by this committee [human treatment of animals by ensuring that the basic needs of animals are met through adequate access to food and shelter]. The study focuses on helping tasks and doesn't involve punishment or physical harm to the chimpanzee's) - Weakness: Low ecological validity (Conducted in an artificial environment and chimpanzees were given tools that they wouldn't normally used in their natural environment [e.g. stick and straw]) - Weakness: Low generalisability (Sample size was 5 pairs of chimpanzees from the same research institute. Difficult to say that this sample of captive chimpanzees is representative of wild chimpanzee populations)

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Saavedra and Silverman (2002)

- Strength: Since we assigned numbers to gather quantitative data, we can objectively say that they the boy improved as a result of the therapy - Strength: Qualitative data was gathered about the boy's background, and this can useful in understanding the boy's development of a specific phobia - Strength: Longitudinal study/Case study - Strength: Ethics - Weakness: Cannot generalise due to the specific phobia-self report method is bias - Weakness: Clinical case study so researcher bias is increased - Weakness: Use of self reports