Now, this is actually very interesting. The experiment does show a very clear and fascinating result, but I would like to see the methodology cleaned up a little. *Puts on Psychology hat*: 1) The sample size. There were 8 total experiments with a female victim, with only 4 with a male victim. Although the results clearly shown more a far higher percentage of occasions where someone spoke out when the victim was female (87.5% as opposed to 0%), I would have preferred that the experiment be carried out in an actual amount with both sample scenarios. 2) The sample size is WAY too low to be generalised. Only a combined total of 12 scenarios were carried out, which means only 12 sample groups of bystanders. I would like to see a minimum of 100 acted out scenarios for each, with the gender of the sample groups an even 50-50 (so 50 scenarios with a male victim and predominantly male group, 50 with a male victim and predominantly female group, 50 with a female victim and predominantly male group, 50 with a female victim and predominantly female group). That way, it could be seen whether or not there is a correlation between the gender of the victim and sample. 3) Id like to see some variations in the couples, to help rule out factors that may contaminate the results such as whether the male or female actors are seen as more vulnerable or intimidating due to their physical appearance. 4) Fortunately, the video did show that the experiment was carried out at multiple restaurants, but I would like to see it carried out in a wide variety of locations (such as cities, countries etc) so that the results can be generalised to the general population more easily. 5) Id like to see a confederate placed at a table near the bystanders to observe their reactions, to help inter-rater reliability as otherwise, possible observer bias could hinder the reliability of the experiments results. 6) During the debrief, I would have liked to have seen the sample asked questions to determine why they did or did not speak up about the incidents in the controlled scenario to help cement a possible reasoning. Did they mistake it for something else? (which could again be applied to gender roles - like the assumption that the woman was simply grinding up medication because theyre seen as the care givers etc) or maybe they thought someone else would speak up? Im not saying the results are absolute rubbish due to the points I listed above as the result was very clear (a difference of 87.5% is hard t deny), but they would make things a bit more clean cut. Really is fascinating and I would like to see it explored in more detail.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 12:43:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015