RM + ethics

• Case for RM?

  Loftus + Palmer 1974 (lab)

  Schaffer (natural experiment)
• Case for ethics?

  Loftus + Palmer

  Schaffer
• Features of a lab experiment. +/- and why they use them?

  -> Measure/research something hard to do. May be unethical to do using a different RM.

  
  

  - Standardised procedure.

  - Operationalised variables.

  - Participants were randomly allocated to IV group.

  - Highly controlled conditions.

  - Manipulate IV and measure DV.

  - Artificial setting.

  
  

  +

  Measure case + effect.

  Easy to replicate due to standardised and high controls.

  -

  Demand characteristics - reduce internal validity.

  Low ecological validity - artificial setting.
• Features of a naturalistic experiment? +/- and why they use them?

  -> Used when you cannot control the variables from occurring e.g., natural disaster or terrorist attack.

  
  

  - Conducted in real-life environments.

  - IV occurs naturally in real-life.

  - Researcher cannot control IV so DV is measured.

  - Participants cannot be randomly allocated to experimental groups.

  - Occurs naturally without researchers intervention.

  
  

  +

  Ecological validity

  Measures the naturally occurring, where IV cannot be manipulated.

  
  

  -

  Demand characteristics - aware of studies - low internal validity.

  Ethical issues - invasion of privacy.

  Difficult to determine cause + effect - no manipulation of IV.

  Extraneous variables.

  Difficult to replicate 'niche'.
• Structure for RM 22 marker + 9 marker

  9 marker

  - intro - define rm + cog processes.

  Explain characteristics, describe the study (Schaffer), and why the RM links to them. Why researcher choose RM.

  Conclusion.

  
  

  22 marker

  - Intro - define RM + cog processes. Issue - how effective are RM in researching cog processes?

  
  

  1) Characteristics of Lab (Loftus+Palmer), describe study and why they use it. Why did they use lab and not different RM?

  +/- of RM.

  
  

  do same for naturalistic experiment (Schaffer).

  
  

  Conclusion - summarise.
• Ethical issues for Loftus + Palmer

  Deception - no more than everyday deception, but had filler questions that tricked participants.

  
  

  Psych harm - watched car crash videos - no questions on if this could be a personal issue (e.g., friends/family death).

  
  

  Informed consent - was given but due to aims being withheld they couldn't fully consent.
• Ethical issues for Schaffer?

  psych harm - 9/11 recall (family/friends affected). Media's impact = could be more negative towards cultures and individuals. However is a rare thing to occur - therefore lacks ecological validity and harm for others.

  
  

  Informed consent - due to the sensitivity of the topic. Demand characteristics, could lie.

  
  

  Withdraw - due to sensitivity, however cannot fully investigate topic so rare if they did therefore may not remind them when recalling.
• 22 marker ethics structure?

  Intro - ethics? BPS? Cog approach - way humans process info affecting behaviour. Define reconstructive memory. Debate - researchers or participants.

  
  

  1) Aim, procedure, findings of Loftus + Palmer.

  2 ethical considerations (with counterclaim).

  
  

  2) Aim, procedure, findings of Schaffer.

  2 ethical considerations (with counterclaims).

  
  

  Conclusion = summarise.