AICE Psych - Case Study Strengths/Weaknesses

Front

Milgram (obedience)

Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

• Strengths: Controlled Observation:

  Standardized procedure (same verbal prods), Realistic Design, Diverse Backgrounds in Sample, Use of Quantitative and Qualitative Data, Qualitative observations

• Weaknesses: Low Generalisability,

• Limited Explanation from Quantitative Data Alone (Shock voltage doesn’t fully capture the emotional or cognitive experience of participants.)

Front

Piliavin (personal space) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

1. Strengths: High Ecological Validity,

2. Large and Diverse Sample,

   Objective and Reliable Measurement,

3. Qualitative Data.

   • Weaknesses: Limited Control Over Extraneous Variables, Risk of Participant Repetition:, Unrepresentative Sample (Culturally Limited)

Front

Dement & Kleitman (dreams & sleep) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Experimental procedures reduced potential demand characteristics. EEG produces reliable biological data. The definition of “dream” was operationalized as a recollection that included clear content.

Weaknesses: In question 2, correlation only links variables but does not establish a causal relationship. Also, external validity, ethics.

Front

Hassett (monkey toy preference) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Use of animals eliminated the effect of socialization. The observation process was standardized with operationalized definitions of behavior to improve reliability. Use of observations.

Weaknesses:  Measures of masculine and feminine play differed between monkey and human studies, children compared using duration not frequency. 
Small sample size, ethics.

Front

Holzel (mindfulness & brain scans)

Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Longitudinal design reduced participant variables compared to previous cross-sectional study.  MRI scans produced objective, qualitative data.

Reliability, standardisation, validity (internal)

Weaknesses: Mapping neural changes noted by MRI to changes in thoughts/emotions may be subjective.  Absence of correlation between increases in gray matter and amount of MBSR homework.

Use of questionnaires, validity (external), sample size.

Front

Andrade (doodling)

Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Standardization of procedures and operationalization of doodling. Reliability, validity (internal), sampling technique

Weaknesses: Sample may be biased, as all participants were volunteers on a recruitment panel. Self-reporting for daydreaming was not monitored.

Validity (external), sample size, ethics, sampling technique

Front

Baron-Cohen (eyes test) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Standardized, laboratory experiment. Confounding variables were reduced and validity improved by the glossary and experimental conditions.

Reliability, validity (internal), quantitative data, ethics.

Weaknesses: Quasi-experiment, lack of random allocation of participants could lead to confounding variables.

Ecological validity is low - outside of the experiment, a person’s eyes are rarely seen as static, still images or in isolation from the rest of the face.

Front

Saavedra & Silverman (button phobia) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths:

1. High Validity, study used multiple methods

   • Standardized tools like the Feelings Thermometer .

2. Quantitative and Qualitative Data (personal ratings and interviews)

3. Weaknesses:

1. Small Sample Size (Case Study), limiting generalizability.

   • Participant’s self-reports were highly subjective

2. Demand Characteristics:

   • Participant knew he was being treated, which could influence how he rated his reactions.

Front

Bandura (aggression) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Controlled lab experiment reduced extraneous variables.  Conditions for each group were standardized.  Observation of children through a one-way mirror reduced demand characteristics.

Weaknesses: Limited sample size in each experimental condition.  Possible similarity of sample as they all attended a nursery school based at a university, suggesting similar socio-economic backgrounds.

Low ecological validity, questionable ethics, low generalisability.

Front

Fagen (elephant learning) Strengths/Weaknesses

Back

Strengths: Controlled Observationm, controls for Validity:, Quantitative Data Collection:

Weaknesses: Small, Unrepresentative Sample, Limited Reliability -

Training was flexible, adapted to each elephant's mood and ability.