Little Hans 1909 Phobias- Evaluation

GENERALISABILITY
1. Very Low
  1. Case Study Method- Only 1 participant
    1. ANDOCENTIRC= Only one sex
    2. ETHNOCENTRIC= Only one culture
  2. Not representative of female children, and other from different cultures
RELIABILITY
1. Lacked reliability as there were few controls
  1. Therefore, cannot be easily replicated
  2. OPEN QUESTIONS- there was not a set of standard questions
    1. QUALITATIVE DATA
APPLICATON
1. Focus on sexual matters + unconscious
  1. Led to PSYCHOANALYSIS being developed
VALIDITY
1. HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
  1. Conducted in his natural environment
2. Hans conversed freely with his father about his problems so data was valid to an extent
ETHICS
1. LOW CONFIDENTIALITY
  1. Hans identity has since been released- even after using pseudo name
    1. Herbert Graf
2. ETHICAL CONSENT
  1. Considered ethical a parents gave consent as he was under 16yrs
SUBJECTIVITY
1. INCREASING SUBJECTIVITY
  1. Freud has to interpret his own data
    1. However, other analysts may have developed a different conclusion
    2. For example; Freud didn't consider other reasons for Hans' phobia
  2. Data may be biased as it was mostly collected by Hans' father
    1. May have only included details to fit with Freud's theory

Resource summary

	Created by jess.courtney13 over 10 years ago