paychology weaknesses and strengths
# AICE Psychology 2024–2026: Flashcards (Strengths and Weaknesses)
## Dement & Kleitman (1957)
Q: What are the strengths of the Dement & Kleitman (1957) study?
A:
- Controlled lab setting ensured high internal validity.
- Objective measures like EEG recordings used.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Dement & Kleitman (1957) study?
A:
- Small, mostly male sample limits generalizability.
- Unnatural sleep environment may affect behavior.
---
## Hölzel et al. (2011)
Q: What are the strengths of the Hölzel et al. (2011) study?
A:
- Used MRI scans for objective brain measurement.
- Practical application for mental health (mindfulness).
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Hölzel et al. (2011) study?
A:
- Small, self-selected sample introduces bias.
- Short duration limits long-term conclusions.
---
## Andrade (2010)
Q: What are the strengths of the Andrade (2010) study?
A:
- Simple and easily replicable procedure.
- Clear cause-effect relationship due to experimental control.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Andrade (2010) study?
A:
- Mostly female sample reduces generalizability.
- Artificial task may lack ecological validity.
---
## Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)
Q: What are the strengths of the Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) study?
A:
- Matched groups reduced confounding variables.
- Standardized and validated measures (Eyes Test).
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) study?
A:
- Gender imbalance in autism group.
- May not reflect real-world social understanding.
---
## Pozzulo et al. (2012)
Q: What are the strengths of the Pozzulo et al. (2012) study?
A:
- Age comparisons offer developmental insight.
- Relevant to real-life legal contexts (eyewitness testimony).
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Pozzulo et al. (2012) study?
A:
- Children may interpret tasks differently.
- Opportunity sample may not be representative.
---
## Bandura et al. (1961)
Q: What are the strengths of the Bandura et al. (1961) study?
A:
- Large sample and matched participant design.
- Controlled environment enhances internal validity.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Bandura et al. (1961) study?
A:
- Exposes children to aggressive behavior (ethical issue).
- Sample limited to American children.
---
## Fagen et al. (2014)
Q: What are the strengths of the Fagen et al. (2014) study?
A:
- Naturalistic observation adds ecological validity.
- Captured real social learning in elephants.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Fagen et al. (2014) study?
A:
- Difficult to control variables in the wild.
- Small sample limits generalization.
---
## Hassett et al. (2008)
Q: What are the strengths of the Hassett et al. (2008) study?
A:
- Controlled conditions ensured consistency.
- Ethical advantages over human trials.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Hassett et al. (2008) study?
A:
- Questionable generalizability to humans.
- Anthropomorphism may bias interpretation.
---
## Saavedra & Silverman (2002)
Q: What are the strengths of the Saavedra & Silverman (2002) study?
A:
- Rich, detailed case study data.
- Therapy success shows real-world effectiveness.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Saavedra & Silverman (2002) study?
A:
- Based on a single case—can’t generalize.
- Researcher bias possible in interpretation.
---
## Milgram (1963)
Q: What are the strengths of the Milgram (1963) study?
A:
- Highly controlled procedure.
- Revealed key insights about obedience.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Milgram (1963) study?
A:
- Ethical concerns (deception and stress).
- All male, American sample.
---
## Piliavin et al. (1969)
Q: What are the strengths of the Piliavin et al. (1969) study?
A:
- High ecological validity—real subway setting.
- Large, diverse sample.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Piliavin et al. (1969) study?
A:
- Lack of informed consent.
- Many variables were not controlled.
---
## Perry et al. (2015)
Q: What are the strengths of the Perry et al. (2015) study?
A:
- Real-world application (personal space norms).
- Used varied methods and populations.
Q: What are the weaknesses of the Perry et al. (2015) study?
A:
- Cultural bias may affect findings.
- Sampling may not be evenly distributed.
# AICE Psychology 2024–2026: Strengths and Weaknesses
## Dement & Kleitman (1957)
Strengths:
- Controlled lab setting ensured high internal validity.
- Objective measures like EEG recordings used.
Weaknesses:
- Small, mostly male sample limits generalizability.
- Unnatural sleep environment may affect behavior.
## Hölzel et al. (2011)
Strengths:
- Used MRI scans for objective brain measurement.
- Practical application for mental health (mindfulness).
Weaknesses:
- Small, self-selected sample introduces bias.
- Short duration limits long-term conclusions.
## Andrade (2010)
Strengths:
- Simple and easily replicable procedure.
- Clear cause-effect relationship due to experimental control.
Weaknesses:
- Mostly female sample reduces generalizability.
- Artificial task may lack ecological validity.
## Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)
Strengths:
- Matched groups reduced confounding variables.
- Standardized and validated measures (Eyes Test).
Weaknesses:
- Gender imbalance in autism group.
- May not reflect real-world social understanding.
## Pozzulo et al. (2012)
Strengths:
- Age comparisons offer developmental insight.
- Relevant to real-life legal contexts (eyewitness testimony).
Weaknesses:
- Children may interpret tasks differently.
- Opportunity sample may not be representative.
## Bandura et al. (1961)
Strengths:
- Large sample and matched participant design.
- Controlled environment enhances internal validity.
Weaknesses:
- Exposes children to aggressive behavior (ethical issue).
- Sample limited to American children.
## Fagen et al. (2014)
Strengths:
- Naturalistic observation adds ecological validity.
- Captured real social learning in elephants.
Weaknesses:
- Difficult to control variables in the wild.
- Small sample limits generalization.
## Hassett et al. (2008)
Strengths:
- Controlled conditions ensured consistency.
- Ethical advantages over human trials.
Weaknesses:
- Questionable generalizability to humans.
- Anthropomorphism may bias interpretation.
## Saavedra & Silverman (2002)
Strengths:
- Rich, detailed case study data.
- Therapy success shows real-world effectiveness.
Weaknesses:
- Based on a single case—can’t generalize.
- Researcher bias possible in interpretation.
## Milgram (1963)
Strengths:
- Highly controlled procedure.
- Revealed key insights about obedience.
Weaknesses:
- Ethical concerns (deception and stress).
- All male, American sample.
## Piliavin et al. (1969)
Strengths:
- High ecological validity—real subway setting.
- Large, diverse sample.
Weaknesses:
- Lack of informed consent.
- Many variables were not controlled.
## Perry et al. (2015)
Strengths:
- Real-world application (personal space norms).
- Used varied methods and populations.
Weaknesses:
- Cultural bias may affect findings.
- Sampling may not be evenly distributed.
# AICE Psychology 2024–2026: Core Studies Summary
## Dement & Kleitman (1957)
Aim: Investigate REM sleep and dreaming.
Sample: 9 adults (7M, 2F), volunteer sample.
Strengths: Controlled environment.
Weaknesses: Small, low generalizability.
Findings: REM is strongly associated with dreaming.
Conclusion: Dreaming mostly occurs in REM sleep.
## Hölzel et al. (2011)
Aim: Study mindfulness and brain structure.
Sample: 16 volunteers.
Strengths: Objective MRI data.
Weaknesses: Small, biased sample.
Findings: Increased grey matter in hippocampus.
Conclusion: Mindfulness changes the brain physically.
## Andrade (2010)
Aim: Does doodling help attention?
Sample: 40 participants, opportunity sample.
Strengths: Easy, quick to recruit.
Weaknesses: Mostly female; not representative.
Findings: Doodlers remembered more.
Conclusion: Doodling aids memory and focus.
## Baron-Cohen et al. (2001)
Aim: Theory of Mind in autism.
Sample: 3 groups – autism, Tourette’s, controls (mixed sampling).
Strengths: Matched groups.
Weaknesses: Gender bias in autism group.
Findings: Autism group scored lower.
Conclusion: Autism linked with impaired Theory of Mind.
## Pozzulo et al. (2012)
Aim: Eyewitness accuracy in children vs. adults.
Sample: Children and adults, opportunity sample.
Strengths: Wide age range.
Weaknesses: Children may have variable recall.
Findings: Children less accurate.
Conclusion: Age affects eyewitness reliability.
## Bandura et al. (1961)
Aim: Observational learning of aggression.
Sample: 72 children, opportunity sample.
Strengths: Large group; matched for aggression.
Weaknesses: Only U.S. nursery children.
Findings: Children imitated aggression.
Conclusion: Supports social learning theory.
## Fagen et al. (2014)
Aim: Learning in baby elephants.
Sample: Natural observations.
Strengths: High ecological validity.
Weaknesses: Hard to control variables.
Findings: Elephants learn socially.
Conclusion: Elephants use observational learning.
## Hassett et al. (2008)
Aim: Toy preferences in monkeys.
Sample: 34 rhesus monkeys.
Strengths: Controlled animal setting.
Weaknesses: Human generalizability issues.
Findings: Sex differences in toy choice.
Conclusion: Toy preferences may be biological.
## Saavedra & Silverman (2002)
Aim: Treat button phobia in a boy.
Sample: One 9-year-old boy.
Strengths: Detailed data; therapy success.
Weaknesses: Single case; low generalizability.
Findings: Disgust was key; exposure worked.
Conclusion: Exposure therapy helps disgust-based phobia.
## Milgram (1963)
Aim: Obedience to authority.
Sample: 40 males, volunteer sampling.
Strengths: Controlled; internal validity.
Weaknesses: Male-only; ethics issues.
Findings: 65% gave maximum shock.
Conclusion: People obey authority even against morals.
## Piliavin et al. (1969)
Aim: Bystander behavior on subway.
Sample: 4,450 subway riders, opportunity sample.
Strengths: Realistic setting; large sample.
Weaknesses: No consent; uncontrolled variables.
Findings: Help more likely for ill victim.
Conclusion: Helping depends on victim type.
## Perry et al. (2015)
Aim: Study personal space norms.
Sample: Adults/students, mixed sampling.
Strengths: Real-world relevance.
Weaknesses: Cultural and gender bias possible.
Findings: Personal space varies across contexts.
Conclusion: Social norms shape personal space.