I believe the answer is: valid, but not reliable
A result would be considered as valid if it is created by using proper logical thought or common way of reasoning. But, such result on personality would not be considered to be reliable because there are too many factors that could create a deviation within the data, and there is no accurate way to truly measure personality.
John's study should <u>"not be approved because he has violated the ethical standard of confidentiality/privacy."</u>
Privacy chances in examine identify with the identifiability of members, and the potential damages they, or gatherings to which they have a place, may involvement from the accumulation, utilize and exposure of individual data. Security dangers emerge at all phases of the exploration life cycle, including introductory gathering of data, utilize and investigation to address examine questions, dispersal of discoveries, stockpiling and maintenance of data, and transfer of records or gadgets on which data is put away.
The moral obligation of confidentiality alludes to the commitment of an individual or association to protect endowed data. The moral obligation of classification incorporates commitments to shield data from unapproved get to, utilize, divulgence, alteration, misfortune or burglary. Satisfying the moral obligation of secrecy is fundamental to the trust connection amongst specialist and member, and to the respectability of the examination venture.
And it is social-cultural influences <span>that determine(s) which personality traits are culturally desirable.
Because of this, certain actions may be condemned within a certain society while being praised in others. For example, women driving is condemned in the middle east while supported in western societies.</span>
because you live in Georgia I guess....
