Experiments (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note
Exam code: 7192
Laboratory experiments
Sociologists use experiments to identify cause-and-effect relationships by manipulating variables and observing the results
Experiments allow sociologists to collect quantitative primary data
Positivists favour laboratory experiments for their objectivity, reliability, and ability to discover laws of cause and effect
Key features
Conducted in a controlled environment
Researchers manipulate the independent variable (IV) to observe its effect on the dependent variable (DV)
Use of experimental and control groups:
The experimental group is exposed to the IV
The control group is not exposed to the IV, thus acting as a comparison
Aims to produce reliable and replicable data under strict conditions
Evaluation of laboratory experiments
Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|
High reliability – standardised procedures ensure consistency, making it easy to replicate. | Low validity – artificial settings may not reflect real-life social behaviour. |
Precise control over variables – useful for testing hypotheses and identifying cause and effect. | Ethical issues – It is unethical to deceive participants or experiment on people without informed consent. |
Objective – the researcher remains detached, reducing the influence of personal bias on the results. | The Hawthorne effect – participants may change behaviour when being observed, leading to low validity. |
Can establish scientific laws of behaviour – researchers may be able to formulate general principles about how people behave in certain conditions. | Limited application in sociology – human behaviour is complex and hard to isolate in lab settings. |
Social experiments (field & comparative)
Social experiments are typically conducted in real-world settings and may use qualitative or quantitative methods
These include field experiments and the comparative method
Interpretivists prefer social experiments but argue that all experiments lack validity, as people are conscious actors and social reality cannot be measured like natural phenomena
Field experiments
Take place in a natural setting, such as a school or workplace, rather than controlled laboratory conditions
E.g., the Pygmalion in the Classroom study tested the effects of teacher labelling (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968)
Participants often do not know they are part of an experiment – the investigation is covert
There is no control group
Evaluation of field experiments
Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|
High validity – more useful for observing real-life behaviour due to natural, familiar surroundings | Ethical issues – often conducted without participants' knowledge, leading to deception |
Reveals the meanings behind social behaviour – allows researchers to understand actions in context | Lack of control – difficult to isolate variables in real-world settings, making causality unclear |
The comparative method
Also known as a natural or thought experiment
No physical experiment is carried out; instead, two groups are compared using existing data to discover cause-and-effect relationships
Developed by Durkheim in his study of suicide, but can be used in education
E.g., The Sutton Trust (2014) used national data to compare the GCSE results of academy chains and local authority schools
Evaluation of the comparative method
Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|
Practical and ethical – avoids artificial settings, can study past events, and raises fewer ethical concerns since it uses existing data | Lack of control – researchers have less control over variables compared to field experiments |
Useful for large-scale trends – effective for analysing historical or social patterns using secondary sources | Reduces certainty about causation – makes it harder to establish clear cause-and-effect relationships |
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?
