Evaluation of research

Sampling (Michelle) Purposive Sampling

This method of sampling was used as they needed both pairs of friends
and random strangers. Researchers used a series of checks to make
sure that the pairs were not related in any way, which rules out
same-ethnicity preferences.
This makes the study highly reliable. Certain characteristics are
required in this experiment and by using purposive sampling it helps
researchers select the participants who can participate in the
experiment.
A disadvantage to purposive sampling is that it is restricted only to a
certain number of people and cannot be generalized to the larger
population.

Credibility (Guada) People do not look for friends based on the other persons genetic SNP

Generalizability - There is a chance for low generalizability as the sampling

(Pranav) technique used is purposive sampling, where the participants
were handpicked according to a selection criteria. Hence this
experiment would only be generalizable to the population
defined by the sample selection criteria.
- However, due to large sample size (1376 pairs of friends and
466608 samples of SNP), there is the possibility for the
selection criteria to be holistic and cover all the bases, thus
automatically increasing the generalizability.
- It has low population validity but high ecological validity as the
experiment was a study of components of a gene (SNP).
Regardless of the experimental condition, a participant cannot
modify or influence their genome. Hence there is high
ecological validity. This adds points to the generalizability and
credibility of the study.

Biases (Sejal) - By selecting people from different ethnicities for the control
group, there may be a bias as the reason they were without
genetic similarities might be due to the difference in ethnicities;
also, there is no evidence that the people who formed the
friendship pairs were from different ethnicities which if not, may
have been the reason for the similar genes; this forms a
difference between the control and experimental group
- The reporting does not account for any outliers so there may
have been a regression to the mean in the data
- Limited evidence to draw the conclusion; researcher(s) may
have interpreted the data to best suit their desired result
Consent - YES - people signed up on their own

Anonymity - YES - no identifying information given about any participant

Right to withdraw - NO DATA

Deception - NO - deception would not be required as participants

cannot modify anything due to desirability or testing
conditions.

Undue stress and harm - MAYBE - stating that friendships have similar genes may
cause

Debriefing - NO DATA