10 marker paper 1 for study
perry et al
Strengths (tips on how to answer below!!!!)
Reliability
A strength of this study is that it is high in reliability which means the
consistency of a measure remains the same after multiple attempts. The
study is done in a laboratory setting which often follows a highly
standardized procedure for example, each participant put 3 drops of their
saline or oxytocin solution in nostrils, all waited 45 min for oxytocin to reach
plateau level, all did the IRI questionnaire assessing 4 components of
empathy, all saw 4 figures in CID condition and all saw 2 rooms in choosing
rooms condition. In conclusion a study high in reliability ensures all
participants have the same experience therefore another researcher can
replicate the study to test for reliability.
Quantitative data
A strength of this study is that it collects quantitative data that is numerical
data that can easily be compared and statistically analyzed. For example,
high empathy group that was in oxytocin condition had less personal space
for the friend figure of 8.4% compared with low empathetic group in oxytocin
condition that had more personal space for friend figure of 16.4%, therefore
conclusions can be made that people with high empathy tend to allow people
nearer their personal space and even more when oxytocin levels are high. In
conclusion quantitative data is objective so is less prone to interpreter bias
so less likely to have invalid conclusions
weaknesses
Ecological validity
A weakness of this study is that it lacks ecological validity; this means that
the tasks and settings fail to capture what happens in real life situations. For
example, participants are in a lab setting, choosing distances of people and
items from a screen and a computer, additionally the tasks lacked mundane
realism as being told to stop a figure with a space bar isn't what happens, in
real life you tell the person to give you space or move away if personal space
is invaded. Additionally, participants looked at a fixation 0.5 fixation point to
know where the figure is, in real life you use your senses to be aware and
identify another person, furthermore choosing chair, table and plant
distances for a meeting through a screen may lead to inaccurate distance
perry et al
Strengths (tips on how to answer below!!!!)
Reliability
A strength of this study is that it is high in reliability which means the
consistency of a measure remains the same after multiple attempts. The
study is done in a laboratory setting which often follows a highly
standardized procedure for example, each participant put 3 drops of their
saline or oxytocin solution in nostrils, all waited 45 min for oxytocin to reach
plateau level, all did the IRI questionnaire assessing 4 components of
empathy, all saw 4 figures in CID condition and all saw 2 rooms in choosing
rooms condition. In conclusion a study high in reliability ensures all
participants have the same experience therefore another researcher can
replicate the study to test for reliability.
Quantitative data
A strength of this study is that it collects quantitative data that is numerical
data that can easily be compared and statistically analyzed. For example,
high empathy group that was in oxytocin condition had less personal space
for the friend figure of 8.4% compared with low empathetic group in oxytocin
condition that had more personal space for friend figure of 16.4%, therefore
conclusions can be made that people with high empathy tend to allow people
nearer their personal space and even more when oxytocin levels are high. In
conclusion quantitative data is objective so is less prone to interpreter bias
so less likely to have invalid conclusions
weaknesses
Ecological validity
A weakness of this study is that it lacks ecological validity; this means that
the tasks and settings fail to capture what happens in real life situations. For
example, participants are in a lab setting, choosing distances of people and
items from a screen and a computer, additionally the tasks lacked mundane
realism as being told to stop a figure with a space bar isn't what happens, in
real life you tell the person to give you space or move away if personal space
is invaded. Additionally, participants looked at a fixation 0.5 fixation point to
know where the figure is, in real life you use your senses to be aware and
identify another person, furthermore choosing chair, table and plant
distances for a meeting through a screen may lead to inaccurate distance
