Loftus & Palmer and Grant
Similarities
Differences
Bandura and Chaney
Read
Kohlberg and Lee
Similarities
Differences
Milgram and Bocchario
Both studies employed a volunteer- sampling method involving respsonses to an advert. However, Milgrams advert was placed in a newspaper, whereas Bocchiaro et al was placed in a student cafeteria.
Piliavin and Levine
One difference is how the independent variable occurs. Piliavin et al. manipulated the IV themselves whereas it was naturally occurring in Levine et al.’s study. Piliavin had direct control over how the victim presented themselves whereas Levine et al.’s IV could not be set up because it was based on the country a person already inhabited.
One similarity is the sampling method. Both studies used opportunistic sampling, collecting the sample based on who was available at the time. In the case of Piliavin et al it was members of public how happened to be travelling on the subway when the fall was staged. In one of Levine et al’s scenarios, the participants were pedestrians who happened to be using a crossing at the same time as a confederate posing as a blind person
Sperry and Casey
Similarities
Differences
*
Maguire and Blakemore & Cooper
Similarities
Method
◦both high in internal validity◦Both easily replicated◦Standardised◦High controls
Ethics
Both ethical - follow the BPS guidelines (be careful for informed consent etc as it was on kittens so they won;
Debates
◦Both are reductionist◦Both are biologically deterministic◦Both use the nature and nurture debate
Sample
◦Both have limited samples
Differences
Method
◦Lab vs quasi◦Data – Qualitative and Quant for Blakemore and only Quantitative for Maguire◦Longitudinal vs snapshot
Ethics
◦Not relevant here – they are both ethical
Debates
◦Not really relevant – they are more similar than different
Sample
◦Kittens vs humans (taxi drivers) – make sure that you refer to them as kittens NOT cats as they were raised from 0 in this environment