Generalisability



| |Generalisability |Reliability |Application |Validity – Experimental? Ecological? |Ethics |

| |Refer to target population and sampling| |If findings from a study can be used to|In social psychology it is important to |A study can be evaluated by considering how |

| |method. |If the study is hard to replicate (do |help society in a |ask ‘Do the participants believe the |ethical or how unethical it was- DRIPP C |

| |If it is not representative the sample |again) then it cannot be shown to be |real-life application, e.g. Milgram’s |research that is taking place’? If not |Debriefing |

| |cannot be generalised to the target |reliable. Reliability means that if a |work on agency theory, then this makes |then their behaviour won’t be valid. |Deception |

| |population. |study is done again the same results |the study more useful, which is an |If a study can be seen to be about real |Right to Withdraw |

| |Also known as population validity |are found. |evaluation point - |life then it is more useful — if it does |Informed consent |

| | | |But say how it is useful (to get a |not reflect real life it is not as useful.|Protection from harm |

| | | |mark) | |privacy |

| | | | | |Competence |

|Milgram’s (1963) |The sample was not representative of |The experiment was designed in such as |The findings of this experiment led |The findings of this experiment are valid |The weakness of this study is that it was |

|original study |people in general. It was self-selected|way as replication was possible. There |Milgram to complete a number of |because the participants believed the |extremely unethical. Participants were |

| |which could produce a biased sample, |were many controls and the procedure |variations in order to try and work out|shocks they were giving were real. We know|deceived about the purpose of the experiment.|

| |and it was all males from one area of |was standardised. For example the same |the reasons participants obey. Agency |this because of the way they reacted |They were deceived about the electric shocks.|

| |the USA and it was small (40). It could|4 prods were used to make the |theory was the conclusion Milgram came |during the experiment, shaking, sweating |They were subjected to psychological harm and|

| |be argued that maybe American men are |participants continue if they refused |to. This theory has since been used to |etc. When Milgram did a follow up |were even given an electric shock! When they |

| |especially obedient, to ensure that you|to go on. The environment was |explain real life atrocities like the |questionnaire a year later it was |clearly wanted to withdraw they were |

| |can generalise from these findings the |controlled and each participant was |Mai Lai massacre during the Vietnam |confirmed that participants did believe |discouraged from doing so. The participants |

| |study would need to be replicated cross|tested individually meaning the |war. |they were giving real shocks. It can be |were secretly being observed/filmed by |

| |culturally and also with female |experiment was replicated 40 times. | |assumed therefore, that for the unusual |Milgram etc etc |

| |participants. |Milgram repeated the expt with females | |situation they were in, their behaviour | |

| | |and found consistent results. | |was natural. | |

|Meeus & Raaijmakers |The sample was not representative of |The experiment was designed in such as |The finds are useful as they add |The findings of this experiment are valid |The weakness of this study is that it was |

|(1986) |people in general. It was self-selected|way as replication was possible. There |support for agency theory as an |because the participants believed the job |extremely unethical. Participants were |

|- Comparison study |which could produce a biased sample, |were many controls and the procedure |explanation of destructive obedience. |interview they were in was real. We know |deceived about the purpose of the experiment.|

|from another country |and all the participants were from the |was standardised. For example the same | |this because of the way they reacted |They were deceived about the job interview |

| |same area of Holland, it was also small|4 prods were used to make the | |during the experiment. When they did a |too. When they clearly wanted to withdraw |

| |(39). |participants continue if they refused | |follow up questionnaire a year later it |they were discouraged from doing so. This |

| | |to go on. The environment was | |was confirmed that participants did |means the ethical guidelines were breached. |

| | |controlled and each participant was | |believe the situation was real., only 40% | |

| | |tested individually meaning the | |thought it was a hoax. It can be assumed | |

| | |experiment was replicated 39 times. | |therefore, that for the unusual situation | |

| | | | |they were in, their behaviour was natural.| |

|HOFLING |Only 3 hospitals in mid-west America |Although the experiment took place in |This study is very useful as it |A strength of the study is that it has |A weakness of this experiment is that it was |

|(1966) |were used, and the nurses used in the |the natural hospital environment where |demonstrates how people respond to |high internal validity. They believed the|unethical. Because the nurses were unaware |

|STUDY IN DETAIL |experiment came from only 2 hospitals.|the environment is harder to control, |legitimate authority in a real |hoax phone call was real and the nurses |they were in an experiment they did not give |

| |As there were only 22 nurses and they |this experiment was designed so that it|situation. This means the findings are |were not aware they were in an experiment |informed consent and therefore they were not |

| |were all female we need to be careful |could be replicated. Each nurse was |ecologically valid. |so their behaviour to authority was real. |able to withdraw from the experiment either. |

| |in generalising from this experiment. |phoned individually and at different | | |In the debriefing the nurses said they felt |

| |These American nurses do not represent |times so that experiment was repeated |However care needs to be taken when |The study also showed the difference |shame, guilt and embarrassment. They were |

| |all nurses, therefore the population |at least 22 times. Hoffling ensured |using the results to support agency |between what people think they would do in|professionally undermined and had to be told |

| |validity of this study is a weakness. |there was an observer on the ward who |theory, this is because the debriefing |a situation and what they actually do – |that the way they behaved was ’normal’. It |

| | |signalled when the conditions were |revealed that most of the nurses were |these further increases the ecological |could be argued that the nurses were caused |

| | |right for the hoax phone call to be |unaware of the dosage they were giving |validity of the experiment. |psychological harm. |

| | |made. This ensured the experiment was |the patient which meant there was no | | |

| | |as controlled as it could be. |evidence of moral strain! | | |

|Tajfel |Care needs to be taken when |The experiment is reliable as it was |This experiment gives us useful |A weakness of this experiment is that it |Although the participants were under the age |

|(1970) |generalising from this study as the |carefully designed so that it could be |insights into how prejudice develops. |lacks ecological validity. The experiment |of 16 which is the age at which you can give |

| |participants were an opportunity sample|replicated. Standardised procedures |Tajfel was able to show that just |took place in an artificial environment |consent, it is assumed that their |

|STUDY IN DETAIL |of Bristol comprehensive school boys |were used, for example all the |putting people into meaningless groups |and the task of filling in matrices is not|school/parents gave consent on their behalf. |

| |with an average age of 15. These cannot|participants were given the same |was enough to trigger in-group bias. |an everyday behaviour. Because the |No harm was caused to the participants and |

| |be said to represent all people and |instructions and the same matrices and | |participants did not know what was |they left the experiment with a bit of extra |

| |this means a weakness of this study is |they were each tested individually. |The study can be used as evidence for |expected of them they may have tried to |money too. Because the study does not breach |

| |its poor population validity. |This means the results are consistent |Social Identity Theory which Tajfel |guess the aim of the experiment and change|any ethical guidelines it can be seen as |

| | |and reliable. |went on to develop. |their behaviour (demand characteristics). |ethical, this is a strength of this |

| | |The experiment was replicated on | |Because boys are naturally competitive and|experiment. |

| | |California girls by Brewer (1980) and | |because they came from a school with a | |

| | |consistent results found. | |house system it may be that the behaviour | |

| | | | |displayed was more to do with competition | |

| | | | |than discrimination. This would mean the | |

| | | | |experiment was not valid as it may not | |

| | | | |have measured what it intended to measure | |

| | | | |but could have accidentally measured | |

| | | | |something else instead! | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download