The two scholars contended that human behavior is not consistent as laymen and professional psychologists views it. They argued that research shows that behavior is not consistent. This inconsistency according to them is consistent and therefore can be used to predict human behavior.
Answer:
The answer is construct validity.
Explanation:
Construct validity is described as the degree in which a study<em> actually</em> measures what it claims to be measuring. A well-designed research will ideally have high construct validy, while a poorly designed one may confound the variables and result in measuring a different aspect.
For example, if a researcher tries to find which of two perfumes is more attractive to customers, <u>but uses different shaped or coloured bottles</u>, it's possible that the test will lack construct validity (the bottles may affect the customers' opinions).
I believe the answer is: Naturalistic theory
Naturalistic theory refers to the theory which see that everything that happen in universe could always be explained by logical approach. In research, having this theory would make researchers reluctant to make conclusion without objective evidence.
