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.
However, they are opposed by Interpretivists who say they impose the researcher’s framework of ideas on the respondents and they claim this may influence the respondents’ view on the question being asked. A reason as to why some sociologists choose not to use questionnaires when conducting research is because of a chance of a low response rate. This may be a result of people who receive questionnaires being not bothered to complete and return it. This can be a problem as the people who do not respond having a different opinion to those who do respond, this does not provide accurate representativeness. A higher response rate can be obtained if follow-up questionnaires are sent, but this can add to the cost and time.
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
One reason a valid experiment may produce null results is a. the range of levels in the independent variable was insufficient to show an effect. b. the dependent variable reflects a broad range of performance. c. that the experiment is conducted in an environment that is too difficult. d. that reactivity occurs in the participants (e.g., they adopt the role of “good behavior”). 7.
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.
However relatively little research has been done to verfiy the accuracy of predictions to determine whether it is in fact pseudoscience. Little research in the sense, it does not seems to change overall perceptions of astrology. If this were not the case there is doubt that this practise would survive for so long, including in the Modern era. This essay was intended to argue against astrology as a science. First the paper will introduce the subject to the reader.
In Milgram's experiment, test subjects were asked to do something that was, on the surface, unethical. Milgram was fascinated by the way people could be persuaded to cause harm to individuals if the instructions came from authoritative figures or those who would be considered credible. Although Milgram's experiment would not be conducted today for ethical reasons, the information derived from Milgram's experiment
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.