Evaluation of studies in Psychology: strengths and weaknesses

Causality If a study uses a laboratory experiment, it is possible to conclude that A causes B, and this is useful (a strength); if a study is correlational it is not possible to conclude that A causes B, just that A and B are correlated. This is often a weakness, as it only gives us limited information. Do we want to know that stress is linked with illness, or that it causes illness? It is a strength if the procedures of a study can be repeated easily; if the study is complicated, or insufficient details are provided for it to be clear what was done, replication would be difficult, and this is a weakness. If an explanation of behaviour reduces the behaviour to just one factor (eg. biology) and ignores all others, it is reductionistic. This is an over-simplification of the complexity of human behaviours and processes, and is a weakness. For example, a genetic explanation of depression is reductionistic as it ignores all other contributing factors, and says that depression is genetic. (NB all explanations are
reductionistic in one way or another)

Reliability

Reductionist

External validity If the sample used was very specific in age, gender, occupation, experiences or (population abilities, this is a weakness. It is also a weakness if the sample was small. This is validity) because the more specific people are, the more likely they are to have unique characteristics which make them un-representative of the general population. This means that results cannot be generalised beyond the sample in the study (population validity). Ethical issues It is a weakness if the study raises ethical issues. Were these overlooked, not anticipated, ignored, or not dealt with well by the researchers? A study should not raise ethical issues (should gain informed consent, gives participants the right to
withdrawal, and the right to confidentiality, does not cause distress or harm, and does not use deception).

Ethnocentric

It is a weakness if you can say that the findings / theory, are based on norms, values and practices which apply more to western countries than they do to nonwestern countries, and assume that non-western countries are the same. When a study uses animals (non-human) as participants, it is a weakness to assume that what occurs in animals, and why, is necessarily exactly the same in humans. Such studies can be used as a guide, but extrapolating from animal studies needs to done cautiously. If the findings, or theory, have practical value and usefulness in the real world, this is a strength. Have they helped to advance our understanding of human nature? Have they helped psychologists to develop effective treatments? Have they generated further research? Have they affected laws, or policies? If the task used in a study is artificial (not true to life), this means that it lacks mundane realism, and is a weakness as it does not tell us anything about that phenomenon in the real world. Where a task is carried out in an artificial setting,

Extrapolation

Applicability

Mundane realism

this will often mean that ecological validity is low too (also a weakness), as findings cannot be generalised from that setting to other settings. Internal validity If it is uncertain exactly what a study is measuring, this reduces the internal validity of the investigation, and is a weakness. If there are confounding variables in the study (ones which vary along with the IV and affect the DV), this also reduces its internal validity, and is a weakness. If the setting of the study was very specific, the results may not generalise to other settings

Ecological validity