Use of Experiments in Natural Sciences and in Sociology
Experiments are particularly important in natural sciences as they are
the device used to either prove or disprove a hypothesis. Sciences
such as chemistry or physiology operate in what is known as closed
systems, where all the variables can be controlled. This means
therefore that such experiments can be carried out, and effectively.
Whereas it may be difficult in physical sciences to control the
variables, and in sociology to recreate everyday life, natural
sciences do not face the same overriding problems. What they are
investigating is predictable and all that makes up the experiment can
be controlled and changed in order to assess how true their hypothesis
is. They do not have to worry about the results not being reliable as
the situations do not change, nor do the subjects under study; they
are going to react to different situations in the same way every time.
Therefore they are particularly useful and well respected as they give
true, unquestionable results that ultimately prove or disprove a
hypothesis, with no room for any substantial opposing argument.
By using experiments it enables scientists to test precise
predictions. Laboratories are environments that the scientist can
control and indeed manipulate the various independent variables
however they wish. They can calculate the effects of a single
independent variable while removing the possibility that any other
factors are affecting the dependent variable they are studying.
b) Assess the reason why experiments are rarely used in sociology. (12
marks)
Even though experiments appear to be extremely useful in proving
something to be true, or to simply find a lot more about a certain
subject, in sociology they are not as useful and reliable. They
frequently incur many ethical or practical problems and are therefore
not used as often as the results they show are very questionable.
A first reason why they are rarely used in sociology is due to the
known and accepted fact that it is extremely difficult to recreate
normal life in the artificial setting of an experiment.
The advantages of the cross-sectional method are that it’s less time-consuming and less expensive; the disadvantages are that the experiment will be more random and disconnected. The benefit of a laboratory observation method is that the environment will be controlled; the drawback is that the results would be more bias than the results of a naturalistic observation method. An advantage of testing is that it takes a shorter time than a case study, but the data from testing would be more broad. The materials needed were letters (mail) and people living in places with different densities. It took four hours for the experiment to be completed. The dependent variable was the amount of letters posted because more letters that were returned to the post demonstrated the generosity of the people living there; people who aren’t kind would not post the letters. The independent variable was whether the living space was low-, medium-, or high-density. There was no control group because people either live in low-, medium-, or high-density areas; there was also no placebo effect. The researchers were looking for a negative correlation between the amount of letters returned and the density of the living place; this means they wanted the amount of letters returned to be decreasing as the density of the living area increased. There weren’t any ethical issues because it isn’t morally wrong to make people post
The laboratory experiment gives the experimenter a greater chance to control the conditions and enables you to measure behaviour with greater precision. This method also allows for quantative research and also enables greater control of variables. Although it gives the experimenter greater control, this can also seem daunting to the subject who may feel more uncomfortable and is less likely to ...
The scientific method is how psychologists gain knowledge about the mind and behavior. It is used by all scientists. The experimental method is the one way to engage the scientific method, and the only way to find a cause and effect in relationships. It is summarized in five steps, observing some phenomenon in the world, forming a hypothesis which is an educated prediction about relationships between two or more variables, examining the gathered information by using empirical research, determining what the results are and drawing them, and evaluating the results whether it will support the hypothesis or not. Researchers, at the end, submit their work for publication for all to see and read (King, 2016). There are three types of psychological research in the scientific method, descriptive research, correlation, and experimental research (King, 2016). The article The Effects of Negative Body Talk in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of College Students (Katrevich, Register, & Aruguete, 2014) is an example of the experimental method.
Milgram's study of obedience is a classic example of a study that lacked in experimental validity and also in mundane realism. Milgram's study consisted of a confederate having to answer questions, which if they got wrong they would fake being given an electric shock by the machine they were attached to. The participant's role was to give these electric shocks to the confederate every time a question was answered wrong, and also the voltage would be turned up with every answer wrong. Along with this Milgram took part as a confederate who would encourage the participant to give the shocks by saying things such as, "This has to be done."
In order to have a successful, reliable experiment you need sufficient data and evidence, reliable research, variables to test and a follow – up experiment. There are several types of variables you need to do an experiment. An independent variable is the manipulated experimental factor that is changed to see what the effects are. A dependent variable is the outcome. This factor can change in an experiment in reaction to the changes in the independent variable. An experimental group is the group of participants that are exposed to the change that the independent variable represents. The control group is participants who are treated in the same way as the experimental group except for the manipulated factor which is the independent variable (King 24). Proper data, evidence and research is also needed so the experiment turns out correctly and you know what you are testing. A follow – up experiment is not required, however it helps the validity of the conclusion of the experiment. Validity is “the soundness of the conclusions that a researcher draws from an experiment” (King 25). Conducting a follow – up experiment will help researchers and people alike see if the experiment worked properly, continues to help people and see how participants are doing after the experiment is over.
Scientists make progress by using the scientific method, a process of checking conclusions against nature. After observing something, a scientist tries to explain what has been seen. The explanation is called a hypothesis. There is always at least one alternative hypothesis. A part of nature is tested in a "controlled experiment" to see if the explanation matches reality. A controlled experiment is one in which all treatments are identical except that some are exposed to the hypothetical cause and some are not.
Asch and Milgram’s experiment was unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the details of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress, Asch and Milgram’s replicated the reality of life. In “Options and Social Pressure” Solomon E. Asch conducts an experiment to show the power of social influence, by using the lengths of sticks that the participants had to match up with the best fit, Asch then developed different scenarios to see how great the power of influence is, but what he discovered is that people always conformed to the majority regardless of how big or small the error was the individual always gave in to the power of the majority.
I think that if we were able to keep doing these experiments, we would have much more information and knowledge about psychology and sociology. If we truly do want to know more about these subjects, then we need to realize that we have to do these types of experiments and accept the risks and just do these types of experiments.
According to Jimenez-Buedo (2011), it is difficult to make a valid reference that there is a causal relationship when conducting an experiment in a laboratory-style setting. Jimenez-Buedo (2011) also states that both internal and external validity are being inferred without adequate evidence to support the claims being made in many cases. Jimenez-Buedo (2011) also states that generalization of results in the case of external validity should not be taken lightly. In other words, it appears that she feels that neither internal nor external validity should be inferred in many cases associated with experiments that are done in a laboratory setting versus the real world. This appears to mean that in all circumstances Jimenez-Buedo (2011) favors conducting experiments that are as representative as possible of the real world in order to be able to validate the results and in order to infer a causal or generalizable relationship.
Observation allows researchers to experience a specific aspect of social life and get a firsthand look at a trend, institution or behaviour. It promotes good communication skills, improves decision making and enhances awareness.
The first method to be discussed and analysed are experimental methods. There is a variety of experimental methods including; laboratory, field and natural experiments. These methods are the most scientific method due to them being highly objective and systematic. In addition, this method is regarded as the most powerful research method used in psychology because of the potential to investigate the causes of events and therefore, identifying the cause and effect relationship. When carrying out an experiment the researcher intervenes directly in the situation being investigated. The researcher manipulates an independent variable (IV) in order to investigate whether there is a change in the dependent variable (DV). Any other variables that could have an
Animal experiments can study the habits of animals, and help build a suitable living environment for endangered animals. In addition, the animals born in the laboratory have higher survival rate than the animals born in the laboratory. The most important thing is that, after the experiments, the animals will be released to the natural environment. So, the animal experiments can help animal survival.
A team of scientists can observe the same phenomenon under investigation. They can then formulate a hypothesis to account for those behaviors. They can then form experiments so they can confirm or reject those hypothesis designed to explain the behavior of organisms.
In the natural sciences there are always ethical norms that limit how knowledge can be produced. In the natural sciences, experimentation is an important method of producing knowledge but ethical judgments can limit the use of this method. There are areas that are considered unethical ...
My social experiment, took way too much thought to complete. I could not think about what I should do for this project until about noon on that beautiful Sunday. I invited a couple of friends to go with me to Walmart, but I was unsuccessful and I only got one friend to accompany me. Even so, we had fun.