The group that got question with the verb ‘smashed’ stated they saw glass even though there wasn’t any. This again suggests that leading questions can alter the memory stored. Both of the studies were done in a lab which meant they could control extraneous variables such as the video being the same, the participants were all the same distance from the video and the way the question was phrased were the same apart from the verb. This allows the researchers see that the verb was the reason why the participant’s answers varied. However, this experiment lacks ecological validity as it’s done in a lab and so doesn’t have the same effect on people as if it were to happen in real-life.
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.
My question would then be why would a person or persons in charge decide not to continue to enforce order and let individuals be free to produce such violent acts. So my next question would be to study the “system” and why they decided to withdraw their presence, what were they expecting from these situations? 4. In what way could this topic/research be continued or studied
Individual differences were important in this variation as those who were more confident were less likely to conform. A limitation of Asch’s study is whether it is valid or not. Asking students to judge the length of lines is an insignificant task. On a more important task, conformity is likely to drop Asch’s findings may only tell us about conformity in special circumstances and the study also lacks mundane realism. Having said this, the study was still well controlled and systematic.
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.).
b Operations Experiment 9A: Lab Operations and Uncertainty Jenaqua Hairston Dr. Bump 10/20/11 Purpose/Background During experiments values are obtained and compared to true values which leads to the accuracy of an experiment. However, a complete accurate value is never achieved, because all experimental data is impacted by errors of some sort. Whether it be human error or things along the line of measurements taken, values will not always meet the expectations of a true value. Experimental uncertainty is often present in the form of systematic errors which can not be avoided. Systematic error in physical sciences commonly occurs with the measuring instrument having a zero error.
This explanation seems satisfying at first glance, then again a dilemma surfaces; as what was raised by Garver and Lee on chapter 2. If false propositions are false because there are no existing reality that correlates to them, why is it that we are still able to understand the meaning behind them (Garver & Lee, 1994:16)? If there is no John in the classroom, why is it that we are still able to come up with a corresponding meaning, such as the informant lying or is ignorant of the fact that there is no John in the classroom? From what I understand from the challenge of false proposition is it brings about the necessity to come up with criteria of truth and meaning because the challenge seems to imply that false proposition could also elicit the characteristic of having meaning. 1 What I mean by this is the material world as opposed to the intellectual world.
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.
The main type of data collected from scientific methods is quantifiable which in its collection and analysis is less affected by researchers thoughts, feelings and judgements. Without objectivity, there is no way of being certain that the data collected from a scientific study is valid; for example participants may be susceptible to investigator effects which would lead them to behave in an alternative manner. By being objective therefore, the data collected will be accurate as they have avoided researcher bias. Loftus and Palmer collected
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.