Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh bumswizzles! That would make sense actually, considering they then asked about lab experiments later on. Two research methods in one section.....unlikely. Oops!
Ohh shame about the IV thing! Fingers crossed the examiner's in a 'nice' mood? :P:
Ohhh I didn't mind the animal question, as it was the one I'd most revised, but just...didn't do it
In the disadvantages essay I did:
P1-Highly reliable yet lacks external validity due to artificial conditions........etc. E.g. Asch's conformity study.
P2-Claims to be objective, yet findings are inevitably subjective, as the research is a social process involving humans with their own career goals..........etc. E.g. Rosenthal's rat maze study.
P3-No qualitative data, thus lacking feelings, meanings and motivations......... etc. E.g. Buss' mate preference questionnaires.
P4-Reductionist and deterministic..........etc. E.g. Rahe's reductionist conclusion on 'stress and illness is caused by traumatic life events.'
Conclusion-Kuhn's conclusion that whether psychology should be studied scientifcally is a red herring as science isn't truly science, etc. Perhaps the way forward is to use triangulation....etc.
And then the dealing with ethical issues one:
Brief intro- 3 main ways are Right to withdraw, Debriefing and Prior general consent/Presumptive consent.
P1-Right to withdraw protects pps from harm. E.g. Zimbardo allowed 5 pps to withdraw early, etc.
P2-Right to withdraw doesn't protect pps from harm encountered before withdrawal. E.g Zimbardo's pps felt "humiliated and belittled" etc.
P3-Debriefing justifies deception. E.g. Milgram told pps the shocks were fake, etc.
P4-Debriefing doesn't justify extent of deception, which can cause distress. E.g. Milgram's study caused his pps distress- one having a seizure, etc.
P5-Prior general/presumptive consent is effectively informed consent. E.g. Milgram again
P6-Prior general/presumptive consent is not the same as fully informed consent. E.g. Zimbardo's pps did not agree to be "humiliated and belittled" by the 'guards' etc.
Conclusion- Do the ends justify the means? When using humans- often no. Perhaps the way forward is to tighten up on the use of ethical committees, increase the power of the BPS and to do cost-benefit analysis for all research, etc. E.g. If research such as Zimbardo's can help to explain and thus eliminate torture such as that at Abu Ghraib, is the research ethically justifiable?
/Essay
Sorry...was trying to be brief but then got carried away. Is that similar to what you put?