Hassett Et Al Evaluation

Question 1

Name the 3 strengths of the study

Answer 1

1. High reliability and standardisation/operatioanlisation
2. High internal validty and objective measures/ extraneous varibles
3. Collection of objective and quantitative data

Question 2

Name 3 weaknesses of the study

Answer 2

1. Generalisability and sample/ limited categories
2. Low mundane realism
3. Different methodologies used in the human comparison study

Question 3

ME

The study was high in reliability which enhances how credible and accurate the research is. (Evidence)

Answer 3

• Standarised placement of the toys and standaridised toy choice. (Limits extranous varible and variblility/ enhances replicability)
• Clear operatioanl definitions for behaviours. Throw= to project the toy into air with hand. (Coding processes can be replicated, enhances consistency and inter-observer realibility)
• 2 observers reviewed the video evidence/ code behaviours (limits observer bias and enhances interobserver realibility)

Question 4

The study has high internal validity allowing researchers to establish causal relastionships as the researchers utilised objective meausures and collected quantitative data (evidence)

Answer 4

• The use of video cameras for observations (reduces demand characteristics/ observerbias/ can review data consistently)
• Counterbalancing of toys (controls for location bias/ reflects genuine preferences rather than arbitary spactial positioning)

Question 5

The study used objective and quantitative data which raised both the reliability and validity of the study

Answer 5

• Use of structured obsevervation method with a behavioural checklist (quantitative/minimises researcher bias)
• Quantitative data of duration of toy intercations (enabled objective calculations/ subjective interpretations lowered/ statistical technqiues)

Question 6

The samples was limited in representativness, which limits the statistical power and generalisability of the result

Answer 6

• Use of rhesus monkeys (limits generalisbility of results to humans/ applicability)
• Use of captive monkeys living in research station (not generalsible to wild monekys)
• Restricted focus on 2 categories of toy types ( remains unclear how these monkeys woyld react to toys that dont fit neatly into these categories)
• There was a lack of adult males in the sample,

Question 7

The study yeilded low mundane realism and thus ecological validity affecting the extent to which the results are valid and can be generalised.

Answer 7

• The monkeys wouldn’t normally be in a situation where they would be given toys (affects study’s relavance to natural toy preferences)
• The monkeys were placed in a new, contrived and possibly exciting situation (encourage more egagement or how they intercted with the toys
• monkeys in captivity, and they might be more likely to show interest in new objects in their environment.

Question 8

The validity of the study is comprimised by the different methodologies employed by the human comparison study