Cognitive Approach (2)
Loftus and Palmer/Savage-Rumbaugh: Similarities: They both lack generalisability. For example, Loftus and Palmer used student participants, who could be very different to other participants, and therefore we can't generalise all findings to all eyewitnesses. Savage-Rumbaugh lacks generalisability as they only used a small sample of chimps, and they would have yo use more chimps to have a representative sample. Differences: Loftus and Palmer had low ecological validity as they used an artificial environment as they watched video clips in a lab environment, whereas Savage-Rumbaugh has high ecological validity because as Kanzi and the researchers could roam from place to place around the 55 acre site.
Loftus and Palmer/Baron-Cohen: Similarities: Both collected Quan Data (L&P obtained mean speed estimates of the car crash i.e. 41.8 mph in 'smashed' condition; BC obtained Quan data in the form of scores on the Eye Tasks enabling researchers to carry out detailed stastical analysis of the results. Differences: Loftus and Palmer arguably had a larger sample as they in total used 195 student participants whereas Baron-Cohen used a smaller sample as high functioning adults are quite rare .
Savage-Rumbaugh/Baron-Cohen: Similarities: They both collected Quantitative date. For example, SR collected Quan data allowed for analysis and comparisons could be made between the different chimpanzees. Baron-Cohen collected Quan data in the form of scores on the Eyes task. Differences: It can be argued that SR is high in ecological validity as Kanzi and the researchers could roam from place to place around the 55 acre site, whereas BC may lack validity as the Eyes task might not actually be measuring theory of mind.