Evaluation of Individual Differences Approach

Created by: Sam Masters
Created on: 19-03-13 13:51


	Evaluation of Individual Differences Approach
	Advantages This approach allows psychologists to learn more about human behavior because all behaviors are studies rather than just 'average' ones. This can be seen in Thigpen and Cleckley's case study of a woman who suffered from the very rare phenomena of Multiple Personality Disorder. It allows psychologists to measure differences between individuals in qualities such as personality, intelligence, memory, etc. This can be seen in Griffith's study where cognitive differences between Regular Gamblers and Non-Regular Gamblers are investigated. Studies in this approach may be high in ecological validity, as they often take place in real-life environments. This can be seen in Rosenhan's study, which took place in several real hospitals, so that participants could theoretically experience that same things as the patients. It allows both quantitative and qualitative data to be collected. This can be seen in Griffith's study, where quantitative data (number of wins) was gathered as well as qualitative data (utterances made by gamblers.)	Disadvantages Studies which take this approach often use unrepresentative samples. This can be seen in Thigpen and Cleckley's case study of one 25 year old woman with the very rare Multiple Personality Disorder. The methodology used in this approach may not be objective and therefore open to bias. This can be seen in Rosenhan's field experiment, which used participant observation, where the pseudo-patients' own biases may have affected the type of information they recorded. This approach is based on concepts that are difficult to test and verify scientifically. For example, in Thigpen and Cleckley's case study of Eve White, the concept of Multiple Personality Disorder is difficult to test and verify scientifically, so some subjective measures (interviews, projective tests) are used. This approach may often raise ethical concerns regarding consent, deception, invasion of privacy and psychological stress. This can be seen in Rosenhan's study, where the hospital staff were unaware that they were involved in a psychological study as well as that the pseudo patients faking illness. They may then have become very distressed when they were told they had wrongly identified sane people as insane and concerned that both their jobs and reputations were in jeopardy.
	Evaluation One of the best things about this approach is that it collects both types of data - a huge advantage, as it means that data can be analysed AND explained without needing to design entire separate studies. The fact that they are often high in ecological validity is very beneficial to the credibility of this approach as well. Having said that, one of the big problems with this approach is that the methodology is often open to bias, in a subjective manner. If such biased data was recorded, it would definitely damage the validity of the approach.

Evaluation of Individual Differences Approach

Advantages

This approach allows psychologists to learn more about human behavior because all behaviors are studies rather than just 'average' ones. This can be seen in Thigpen and Cleckley's case study of a woman who suffered from the very rare phenomena of Multiple Personality Disorder.
It allows psychologists to measure differences between individuals in qualities such as personality, intelligence, memory, etc. This can be seen in Griffith's study where cognitive differences between Regular Gamblers and Non-Regular Gamblers are investigated.
Studies in this approach may be high in ecological validity, as they often take place in real-life environments. This can be seen in Rosenhan's study, which took place in several real hospitals, so that participants could theoretically experience that same things as the patients.
It allows both quantitative and qualitative data to be collected. This can be seen in Griffith's study, where quantitative data (number of wins) was gathered as well as qualitative data (utterances made by gamblers.)

Disadvantages

Studies which take this approach often use unrepresentative samples. This can be seen in Thigpen and Cleckley's case study of one 25 year old woman with the very rare Multiple Personality Disorder.
The methodology used in this approach may not be objective and therefore open to bias. This can be seen in Rosenhan's field experiment, which used participant observation, where the pseudo-patients' own biases may have affected the type of information they recorded.
This approach is based on concepts that are difficult to test and verify scientifically. For example, in Thigpen and Cleckley's case study of Eve White, the concept of Multiple Personality Disorder is difficult to test and verify scientifically, so some subjective measures (interviews, projective tests) are used.
This approach may often raise ethical concerns regarding consent, deception, invasion of privacy and psychological stress. This can be seen in Rosenhan's study, where the hospital staff were unaware that they were involved in a psychological study as well as that the pseudo patients faking illness. They may then have become very distressed when they were told they had wrongly identified sane people as insane and concerned that both their jobs and reputations were in jeopardy.

Evaluation

One of the best things about this approach is that it collects both types of data - a huge advantage, as it means that data can be analysed AND explained without needing to design entire separate studies. The fact that they are often high in ecological validity is very beneficial to the credibility of this approach as well. Having said that, one of the big problems with this approach is that the methodology is often open to bias, in a subjective manner. If such biased data was recorded, it would definitely damage the validity of the approach.

Get Revising

Evaluation of Individual Differences Approach