This makes laboratory experiments highly reliable as they are replicable. The laboratory experiment has major advantages as the method can be used to establish cause and effect relationships. For this reasons positivist sociologists use laboratory experiments as they favour a more scientific method. Positivist sociologists however also acknowledge the short comings of laboratory experiments, such as, it is often impossible or unethical to control the variables. Also their small scale means that results may not be representative or generalisable to the wider population.
Other alternatives to laboratory experiments are field experiment and the comparative method. Assuming it is possible to create a controlled environment for sociological experiments; there are still many practical issues with experimental methods; firstly there is no possible way for experiments to research past social trends which reduces the range of information available to a sociologist. Secondly, if a laboratory environment has been created for sociology, this could only be used to study limited sample and therefore would not create very reliable data. Finally it is argued that the artificial environment of and experiment would provoke the ‘Hawthorne Effect (Elton Mayo) ‘because if people know they are being studied, they will behave differently e.g. by trying to second guess what the researcher wants them to do and acting accordingly, which would not give very valid data.
Interpretivist sociologists would choose to not use lab experiments because they lack ecological validity as they are conducted within an environment that is artificial to the participant. This means that the results don’t reflect true-life behaviour because of both the environment they conducted the task in, and the nature of the task wasn’t true to real life and can also be said to not be generalisable to a population because of their small sample sizes in which lab experiments are conducted. Furthermore, participants might have been aware that they were being studied and so might not act normally, which is called the Hawthorne effect. Another reason why interpretivist sociologists don’t choose to use lab experiments is that they say human behaviour cannot be measured or explained in terms of cause and effect, and instead humans act in terms of feeling, choices and also individual motives. Society doesn’t lend itself to be studied in a laboratory and this is because it is so complex and cannot be artificially created.
Unlike in a field experiment where the participants are completely unaware that they are being observed so it gives more of a natural response, this allows the researchers to gain results with greater validity. In a laboratory experiment, the researchers have to tell the percipients the reasons for the experiment to allow the percipients to give full consent this is due to the ethical reasons such as if the person doesn’t agree due to religion/beliefs, ethnicity ect. Where as, the percipients of a field experiment have to be unaware of the reasons for the research to allow a higher rate of natural answers. This means that field experiments are less ethically agreed with. An example of a laboratory experiment is Asch (a psychologist) who tested the rate of conformity within groups.
this is because lab experiments are good at controlling variables, keeping it reliable and representative. However its weak points such as validity is a strong subject for field experiments. However the comparative method should certainly not be used as it lacks control over variables reliability and validity as its not certain whether the experiment had actually discovered the cause of
These aspects are the main reasons behind theories being cogent and compelling. As we all know Natural Science theories are not unerring. Yet many theories are so convincing that we, the public, seem to accept them immediately. So now we look at what makes Natural Science so convincing. Theories in Natural science are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena.
This type of research is often utilized in situations where conducting lab research is unrealistic, cost prohibitive or would unduly affect the subject's behaviour. One of the advantages of this type of research is that it allows the experimenter to directly observe the subject in a natural setting, therefore allowing a truer insight into the subject’s natural behaviours. The main advantage of a naturalistic experiment is that it uses a naturally occurring situation, therefore it is valid. The disadvantages of naturalistic observation include the fact that it can be difficult to determine the exact cause of behaviour and the experimenter cannot control for outside variables. Furthermore untrue generalisations may be made using the information gathered on one subject and using this as a consensus for all subjects falling into that bracket.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
The MBTI introverted personality type says that introvert type does not get energy from outside. It means an introverted person develops good energy from themselves. Nowadays, many people wish to become a good leader, but many have the preconception that an extroverted personality is required to become good leaders. Moreover they believe introverts have disadvantages in our social activities. However, I believe this misconception distorts the truth because an introverted personality actually qualifies for leadership in our current society.
Ricky Taylor The Four Goals of Psychology is based on its findings from scientific research and critical thinking. Information is obtained from direct observations and measurements, making it an ideal way to learn more about behavior. Most people don't know why psychology is so widely studied. There is a lot more to it than identifying a specific type of behavior strictly by looking at the classic symptoms. There are four main goals: to describe, explain, predict and change behavior and mental processes through the use of scientific methods.