Term
| Why is this study generalisable? |
|
Definition
| Conducted in participants' natural setting, results generalised to real-life situations. It may not matter that the sample is not representative; cognitively, everyone's brain works in much the same way. |
|
|
Term
| Why is this study not generalisable? |
|
Definition
| There were only 18 divers, so the sample is too small to represent the general population |
|
|
Term
| How is this study reliable? |
|
Definition
| It used a standardised procedure (same list of words) so can be replicated. |
|
|
Term
| How is this study not reliable? |
|
Definition
| Some things couldn't be controlled, eg the weather and noise levels. Affects the experiment's replicability |
|
|
Term
| What are the applications of this study? |
|
Definition
| Police: Reconstruct crime scenes to make eyewitness testimonies more reliable. Schools: Boost exam results, make exam room more like classroom |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Ecologically valid: Conducted in participant's natural setting. Experimental validity: High due to level of control over rate at which words were read. |
|
|
Term
| How is this study not valid? |
|
Definition
| Listening to a list of words and recalling them underwater is a very artificial task |
|
|
Term
| How is this study ethical? |
|
Definition
| No harm was caused to participants and no ethical guidelines were breached, that we know of. |
|
|
Term
| How is this study not ethical? |
|
Definition
| The participants were underwater so may have been at risk, but they were all trained divers to the risk was minimal |
|
|
