Lucy Bloomfield 20.03.19
Evaluate the practical issues in the design and implementation of the studies by Rosenhan and
Baddeley. 20 marks.
Psychological research often has practical issues in their design and implementation as human
behaviour is difficult to measure reliably as well as with high validity and generalisability. There are
many individual differences and ethical guidelines that need to be considered. Baddeley (a cognitive
psychologist) conducted research into how acoustic and semantic word similarity influenced learning
and recall in the long-term memory. Whilst, Rosenhan (clinical psychologist) researched into how
mental health professionals determine who is sane and who is insane out of their patients. Both
studies had conclusive findings that have been very useful today. Yet, they are very different in
terms of validity and reliability.
Validity is the idea that the study measures what it aims to measure. There are different types of
validity, these being ecological validity and internal validity. Ecological validity is whether the study
involves tasks that are typical of everyday life and internal validity is when individual differences are
removed. Baddeley’s research largely lacks ecological validity as recalling lists of 10 random words is
not typical of everyday life. However, it is arguable that a shopping list is a list of 10 random words,
yet they are often semantically linked, suggesting how it is the acoustically similar word lists which
mostly lack ecological validity. Furthermore, the interference task involved participants recalling six
8-digit sequences which is not a normal task which the sample will have done regularly. Perhaps a
more suitable task may have involved money in adding up numbers as that will have linked to bills
and savings. The lack of ecological validity was unavoidable to a certain extent for Baddeley as his
experiment was a laboratory experiment which relied on control to find valid conclusions, so the
tasks had to be quantifiable and scientific. Yet, overall, Baddeley’s study was significantly ecologically
invalid, suggesting how the results cannot be applicable to everyday ways of using our memory.
On the other hand, Rosenhan’s research was significantly valid. He conducted the study in the
natural environment of a mental health hospital, so all behaviour was natural. The workers were
unaware of the study which further increases the validity as it ensures they did not show any
demand characteristics or act in a socially desirable way. This was key to the study as if the workers
had been aware of the study, they wouldn’t have given the pseudo patients 2,100 tablets or ignored
them 71% of the time. Furthermore, the ecological validity is further increased as Rosenhan used 12
different hospital from five states in the USA which means any issues regarding generalisability are
minimised. Rosenhan’s study is significantly more valid than Baddeley’s due to its naturalistic setting
yet no cause and effect can be established unlike in Baddeley’s.
Baddeley’s research is significantly reliable due to the nature of a laboratory experiment. He uses a
standardised procedure by using the same interference task of copying sequences of digits, the same
time between trials and retest and the same amount of words in each list. This allows the
experiment to be replicated and tested for reliability to ensure conclusions such as the long-term
memory being largely encoded semantically are reliable. Moreover, Baddeley’s study is reliable as
his implementation of the interference task means that he could be completely certain that it was
the long-term memory he was tested and not short-term memory as short-term memory only lasts
18-30 seconds and the interference tasks will have led to the experiment being longer than this.
Rosenhan’s research is reliable to a certain extent. His use of qualitative data (participants diaries)
and quantitative data (number of tablets given) increases the reliability as the subjectivity of the
diaries is outweighed by the objective nature of quantitative data. However, it is arguable that the
participants could have exaggerated the number of tablets they were given suggesting that even the
quantitative data has an element of subjectivity. Rosenhan’s research is largely unreliable as the
Evaluate the practical issues in the design and implementation of the studies by Rosenhan and
Baddeley. 20 marks.
Psychological research often has practical issues in their design and implementation as human
behaviour is difficult to measure reliably as well as with high validity and generalisability. There are
many individual differences and ethical guidelines that need to be considered. Baddeley (a cognitive
psychologist) conducted research into how acoustic and semantic word similarity influenced learning
and recall in the long-term memory. Whilst, Rosenhan (clinical psychologist) researched into how
mental health professionals determine who is sane and who is insane out of their patients. Both
studies had conclusive findings that have been very useful today. Yet, they are very different in
terms of validity and reliability.
Validity is the idea that the study measures what it aims to measure. There are different types of
validity, these being ecological validity and internal validity. Ecological validity is whether the study
involves tasks that are typical of everyday life and internal validity is when individual differences are
removed. Baddeley’s research largely lacks ecological validity as recalling lists of 10 random words is
not typical of everyday life. However, it is arguable that a shopping list is a list of 10 random words,
yet they are often semantically linked, suggesting how it is the acoustically similar word lists which
mostly lack ecological validity. Furthermore, the interference task involved participants recalling six
8-digit sequences which is not a normal task which the sample will have done regularly. Perhaps a
more suitable task may have involved money in adding up numbers as that will have linked to bills
and savings. The lack of ecological validity was unavoidable to a certain extent for Baddeley as his
experiment was a laboratory experiment which relied on control to find valid conclusions, so the
tasks had to be quantifiable and scientific. Yet, overall, Baddeley’s study was significantly ecologically
invalid, suggesting how the results cannot be applicable to everyday ways of using our memory.
On the other hand, Rosenhan’s research was significantly valid. He conducted the study in the
natural environment of a mental health hospital, so all behaviour was natural. The workers were
unaware of the study which further increases the validity as it ensures they did not show any
demand characteristics or act in a socially desirable way. This was key to the study as if the workers
had been aware of the study, they wouldn’t have given the pseudo patients 2,100 tablets or ignored
them 71% of the time. Furthermore, the ecological validity is further increased as Rosenhan used 12
different hospital from five states in the USA which means any issues regarding generalisability are
minimised. Rosenhan’s study is significantly more valid than Baddeley’s due to its naturalistic setting
yet no cause and effect can be established unlike in Baddeley’s.
Baddeley’s research is significantly reliable due to the nature of a laboratory experiment. He uses a
standardised procedure by using the same interference task of copying sequences of digits, the same
time between trials and retest and the same amount of words in each list. This allows the
experiment to be replicated and tested for reliability to ensure conclusions such as the long-term
memory being largely encoded semantically are reliable. Moreover, Baddeley’s study is reliable as
his implementation of the interference task means that he could be completely certain that it was
the long-term memory he was tested and not short-term memory as short-term memory only lasts
18-30 seconds and the interference tasks will have led to the experiment being longer than this.
Rosenhan’s research is reliable to a certain extent. His use of qualitative data (participants diaries)
and quantitative data (number of tablets given) increases the reliability as the subjectivity of the
diaries is outweighed by the objective nature of quantitative data. However, it is arguable that the
participants could have exaggerated the number of tablets they were given suggesting that even the
quantitative data has an element of subjectivity. Rosenhan’s research is largely unreliable as the
