Title: Experimental Psychology

Name of the student:

Daniel Pinchasow

Queens College, CUNY

Author Note

Daniel Pinchasow is a Junior at Queens College, CUNY, majoring in Psychology with a minor in the Pre-Health Services.

This experiment was supervised by the Department of Psychology of Queens College. Any questions regarding this experiment, please contact 718-997-3200 or email: qc_psychology@qc.cuny.edu.


Question 1


There are countless ethical violations in the research method and the entire approach adopted by this researcher is questionable. For instance, prior to conducting a research, a reference letter or the permission letter is required by the researcher’s institute which is presented in the locale. In this case, the reference letter had to be presented to the elementary school’s principal. The researcher has not taken a formal permission from the authorities or the parents of these children which is unethical.

Secondly, the researcher is also violating the ethical code by making false promises with the children who are being asked to respond to the questions in exchange for having snow days. This is an irrational stance and the children are being given false hopes. Moreover, the child is also subjected to the scenario which is not age appropriate and are also subjected to be part of the experiment for a significant amount of time. The action of ‘pinching’ is not only unethical but it is also illegal because children are being forced to act in a certain manner by the researcher.

It would not be wrong to imply here that the researcher is using punishment method suggested by Ivan Pavlov. This method is very serious because it could cause irreversible damage to the child and needs to be carried out in a very controlled manner. Pinching is not the right way of punishing a child and the research method needs to be approved prior to executing it in the real case scenario.

Thus, the researcher is using illegal means to prove the hypothesis because the entire research method is illegal and requires a lot of attention by the authorities. When it comes to handling the children during the experiment, parental monitoring is of paramount importance which is also missing from the research.

Children are also being subjected to the dangerous environments such as snow storms and are also being rewarded for not expressing themselves which is also unethical. Another important thing is the participation of the penguins and stealing them from the local zoo which is also a red flag. In addition to that, comparing children to the non-human beings such as penguins is also not a valid research. It could be marked as an unethical topic or the research method because children are being compared against the animals.

The researcher is also forbidding the children from talking about this research which shows the criminal mindset of the researcher that exceeds the level of unethical actions. In any normal research, the parental or caregiver’s consent is imperative because they know what is best for their children.

An ethical research also allows the participants to step back from the study whenever they want to and this aspect is missing from the study because children are being forced to act in a certain way. The study is biased and the outcomes are being forcefully generated which also includes using manipulative methods to attain the results. There are various reasons behind following the guidelines of the research methodology especially the ethical methods because they allow the researchers to cause no damage to the participant’s lives.

The research is also supposed to bring positive change in the field of academia which is also missing in this study which is rather imposing illegal methods of conducting a study. It could be concluded that the entire research strategy ranging from the topic selection, methodology and approaching the participants etc. is unethical.

Question 2


One of the most important things that has been stated by the researcher is completely uncovering the research topic. It is advised for the researcher to only tell the participants that their responses would help the study rather than discussing the research hypotheses with them. It is carried out to enhance the validity and reduce any chances of bias both from the researcher’s or respondent’s point of view.

Therefore, the researcher should not have disclosed the entire research idea. It could have been avoided by letting the participant’s know about the importance of their responses and how it would positively contribute to the research findings. The main idea of the research must never be discussed with the participants because it could alter their actual responses.

Blind experiments in which the respondents are unaware of the study tend to be beneficial because they help in improving the validity besides lowering any chances of threats to the validity of results. This should also have been the case but the researcher is letting the respondents know about their performance and is also comparing the results.

Similarly, any study is conducted in a neutral manner which does not cause any discomfort. In this case, the researcher is exhibiting a behaviour in which he is trying to let his participants know about his mind reading strategies.

It could have been done in a neutral manner in which the participants were asked to act normally and the researcher would have casually executed the mind reading method. The validity of any study becomes questionable if the researcher starts exhibiting in such a manner that could alter respondents’ performance.

The results are also manipulated as well as biased because the researcher is implying the fact that children are offering him candy because he asked them telepathically. In fact, he had asked for a chocolate therefore, his outcomes were absolutely irrelevant. The validity of these results is questionable and the research interpretation is also irrelevant. This issue with the validity could not be avoided at all because the outcomes are defying the research hypotheses.

It is also possible that the researcher gave a positive response to one of the participants upon receiving a candy because they have started offering him the candies. The outcome is also disputed for the fact that the researcher is behaving not in a normal way.

The constant staring at the child or their candies might have been why children were offering him candies. Also, the two groups that have been compared against one another were exhibiting the similar outcomes however, only one response that was a coincidence, led the researcher to conclude the research findings. There are significant chances of interpreting the biased response which is invalid.

It would not be wrong to state that the research validity is out of place and it could not be corrected simply by using the cues. The entire research methodology ought to be changed in order for the study to generate relevant outcomes. In conclusion, this study could have been carried out in a much refined way that could have removed any chances of biased outcomes or behaviours.

By Daniel Pinchas

Phone number: +1 347 5421 265

Share this Post