studies' S&W

High ecological validity (field exp) Large sample size participants unaware of observation some scenarios may have caused distress

Detailed qualitative data debrief post-study ethical issues low generalisability lowered ecological validity due to roles knowing imprisonment time

practical applications generated a great deal of research didnt look at the influence of social interactions or the cultural setting subjective low validity

Practical applications in education reduced ecological validity because it was an experiment may result in the child being the focus instead of other things

low ecological validity (artficial stories) low generalisability (male-only sample)

backed by repacholi and gopnik 1997 Practical applications no emphasis on importance of individual differences external areas used, meaning ideas arent really one theory

rich qualitative data experimental methods used repeated procedures, increasing validity his use of ‘stage’ to explain cognitive dev. similar studies didnt have similar findings low generalisability as all kids were swiss

ousts dweck’s theory experiment and observation methods compilers of data were unaware of aims, preventing bias participants were decieved parents may have changed their style of praise, causing data to be unnatural and lacking validity

practical applications ecologically valid possibly subjective lacks standardized procedures

backed by amnesia cases murdock 1962 on primacy and recency overstated the role of rehearsal in transferring info to LTM unlikely that we only have one type of LTM (as per amnesia cases)

remembering a story is more realistic replicated procedures, meaning reliable findings qualitative analysis lack of standardised procedures story was illogical, unfamiliar and contained strange words and concepts

standardised procedures (fixed timing, eliminating disturbances) practical applications Lacked mundane realism

results have more scientific status predictions can be made inaccurate and outdated info trouble generating info due to unique brain damage

lost of info, high reliability repeated measures design sample size too small lowered ecological validity due to artificial tasks

matched pairs design reliable findings standardised procedures tested in unfamiliar environment demand characteristics ethical issues (‘protection from harm’ questionable)

same schools in both before and after TV arrived natural environment hard to replicate channels broadcast weren’t the same as mainstream ones e.g TMNT was absent

takes into account ones life events been applied in CBT difficult to tell whether irrational thoughts are a cause/symptom of depression not all depression types can be easily explain by thought processes

behaviours can be unlearnt explains why previous addicts relapse ignores role of biological factory doesnt explain why people try but dont get addicted

extreme qualitative data, helping validity conducted very scientifically poor generalisability fear of horses may have been genuine

extremely high qualitative and quantitative data long time taken lighting would affect internal body clock one-off study, prompting low generalisability

good generalisability useful for dosctors possibly exaggerated self-reported data researchers though people put themselves in situations of stressful life events

may be useful for treating internet addiction reliable data due to same questions and rating scale used across all measurements invalid data due to questions answered based on own feelings unclear whether the different types of addiction all achieved the same effects from treatment