The disadvantages of using a scientific method in ...



The disadvantages of using a scientific method in psychological research.

One disadvantage of the scientific method is that, although it is high in reliability, it is low in external validity. This is because the scientific research involves controlled variables in artificial settings. Participants’ behaviour may not paint a true picture of real life behaviour due to these artificial conditions. For example, in Asch’s study into conformity, the task was deemed to be trivial which could explain the reason why the participant went along with an answer that was obviously wrong.

Another disadvantage of the scientific method is that the findings may be influenced by researcher bias. Although, the researcher aims to try and be as objective as possible, the researcher is part of the investigative process and may influence the research. This may happen in setting a hypothesis, collecting data and analysing the data. The rseaercher may also influence other research assistants such as in the study carried out by Rosenthal & Fode (1963): Rats were given to two groups of experimenters; one group were told that the rats had been bred to be expert at solving mazes whereas the second group were told that the rats had been bred to be dull at solving maze problems. The rats came from the same group and they were not bred for anything in particular. The ‘bright’ rats learned faster and learned more than the dull rats. this showed that the experimenters expectations had influenced the outcome of the study. This was also shown in children’s development too – children whose teacher was told that they show ‘promise’ showed significantly higher IQ scores after one year than children whose teachers were not told this.

The scientific method is also reductionist in that humans are studied as participants in research and only one aspect of their behaviour is being measured. The researcher aims to control as many factors as possible to reduce the effect of extraneous variables. However, often the main characteristics of human nature are classified as extraneous variables when in fact they are part of the process that is being measured if we are studying human behaviour. Also, the researcher has to decide how to operationalise the variables that are being measured and human nature is often not that simple. For example, in research into well-being by Langer & Rodin, the behaviour that was considered to be poor on the measure of well-being was isolation. If the elderly patients stayed in their own rooms or did not attend movie night, this was considered to be poor well-being. Alternative evidence that was carried out in a non-scientific method by Haughe & Kristin used open ended questions in an interview. They found that the patients were happier when they were in their own room as this was where they felt that they had the most control. The scientific procedure of using a closed quantitative measure in Langer & Rodin’s study had missed this.

In order to be scientific the procedure needs to be controlled and objective, collecting data which can be analysed statistically to produce theories which can be tested. However, human beings are not machines and are often unpredictable and very different from one another. Each individual has a different life history and personality that cannot be measured or controlled for using scientific methods.

The advantages of using a scientific method in psychological research.

The scientific method in psychology was use widely by the behaviourists in the 1950’s. Prior to this psychology had been seen more as a philosophy, with Wundt developing the use of introspection and trying to create a scientific method of measuring human thoughts. Freud had developed psychological research further but by using case studies had not followed a scientific method and as such his findings were open to criticism – his theories cannot be tested, his findings from case studies cannot be generalised and his theories are heavily biased by subjective interpretation, where his own opinions about human behaviour influenced how he analysed the data.

Once the behaviourist researchers, such as Watson and Skinner, started to study animal behaviour and then apply the findings and start studying humans, the methods became more scientific. By using controlled conditions in a laboratory, the effects of one variable on another could be measured with confidence. Scientific methods reduce the effect of extraneous variables. For example, in order to measure how much the children were imitating aggression in Bandura’s study, he matched the children for aggression, treated them all to the same standardised procedures except for the independent variable of which adult they saw, frustrated them in the same way and then observed their behaviour in an objective manner where the dependent variable of aggression had been operationalised. This meant that a casual relationship between what the child saw and how it behaved could be made. It also made the procedure higher in reliability as the procedure could be repeated to test the findings by other researchers.

An advantage of the scientific method is that a hypothesis can be proposed and tested and the findings are not subjective. By operationalising the variables that are being controlled and measured, the researcher is not relying on opinion or interpretation. This increases the reliability of the findings as other researchers can repeat the procedure and measure the same variable in the same way. For example, in Gardener & Gardner’s research with Washoe, language was operationalised as signs that were used spontaneously in the correct context on three separate occasions, seen by three different researchers and used for 15 days in a row. This meant that it was not the different researchers’ opinions as to whether Washoe had correctly signed and shown language.

Another advantage of scientific methods is that they produce quantitative data which can be analysed statistically. This may be less time consuming than qualitative analysis but the main advantage is that researchers can be confident that a significant result means that the findings are not a chance occurrence. Robust analysis can show average scores, range of scores and levels of significance which can also present a more manageable result that represents a large group of people. For example, in Buss’s study of mate preference, data was collected from 10,047 participants. While the method may not have been very scientific, the data analysis meant that Buss could calculate averages of the participants’ answers as to which traits they prefer in a partner. Statistics allowed Buss to compare male and female scores as well as examining cultural difference between countries. This would have been extremely difficult using qualitative methods.

While some qualities of human nature may be lost using a scientific method, for many areas of psychology it is the best way of collecting and analysing data from large groups of people to study measurable objective variables.

Ways of dealing with ethical issues in research using human participants

One ethical issue in human research is deception. BPS guidelines state that participants should be able to give informed consent – this means that they should know what the study involves and they agree to take part. Often this is not possible as the aim of the study needs to remain hidden, for example in Milgram’s study of obedience the participants needed to believe that the shocks were real and were being given for the learning test.

One way of dealing with this problem is to gain prior general consent or presumptive consent. This is where the researcher asks the general public if they would agree to take part in the study and then presumes that the participants will feel the same way. Milgram asked a group of ‘reasonable people’ if they would agree to take part and they said they would. Zimbardo assumed that because the participants had agreed to take part in a ‘prison study’, they had consented to the procedure. However, in both experiments the researcher could not have known how the participants would behave but they were criticised for the deception.

Another way of dealing with this issue is to fully debrief the participant at the end of the study. Milgram showed the participant that Mr Wallace was not really harmed by the shocks and he explained the procedure fully and gave the participants the opportunity to withdraw their data. Asch also used deception in his conformity research as it was essential to the hypothesis but he fully debriefed them after the study so that they understood what they had taken part in.

Sometimes consent cannot be given because the participant is not responsible of mind and may not understand what they are agreeing to. Examples of this would be elderly, participants with mental health problems or learning difficulties and children. This issue is dealt with by gaining consent from the responsible adult for the participant. For example, in Gibson & walk’s study into depth perception, babies of 6 months old were used and consent was given by the mother.

Another ethical issue is harm to the participant during or after the research. the BPS states that the participant must be kept free from psychological and physical harm as much as possible. This is often difficult as the researcher cannot know what the effects of the study are until the participant has already taken part. This can be overcome by giving the participant the right to withdraw at any time that they do not feel comfortable. Milgram did not allow his participants to exercise this right until they h ad been pressured by four prompts and this may have added to the distress that they showed. Zimbardo stopped his experiment after only 6 days because of the behaviour of the participants who took on the roles of guard and prisoner too well and started to show signs of distress.

When carrying out psychological research, the well being of the participant is essential and a cost benefit analysis should be made to ensure that the value of the research outweighs any possible distress or inconvenience to the participant. Ethics committees are set up to make this decision so that the researcher is not biased in this decision by the desire to carry out the research. In today’s society, research such as Milgram may not be allowed to take place by an ethics committee as the psychological harm to the participant would not be outweighed by the knowledge about obedience.

Explain why ethical issues are important when using human participants in psychological research.

When using human participants, there are many ethical issues which may arise and they must be considered when carrying out research with humans.

One issue that might arise in research is that of deception. This is important because participants should know what they are taking part in and agree to the procedure of the study. If a participant is deceived they may feel uncomfortable or distressed when they do not know what is happening in the study. For example, in Asch’s study into conformity, the participants did not know that everyone else was a confederate and was deliberately giving the wrong answer. When the participant wanted to say the correct answer, they often felt confused. When interviewed afterwards they said that they believed that “I am wrong, they are right” Others said that they thought the majority were “victim of an optical illusion” or they thought they were ‘deficient’ in comparison to the rest of the group.

However, as in Asch’s study, many hypotheses would be untestable without deception. If the participants had known about the confederates Asch could not measure conformity. Similarly, Milgram needed to deceive his participants into believing that the task was about learning and the shocks were real in order to test their obedience levels. This deception was largely responsible for the distress caused to the participants during Milgram’ study.

Distress or harm of any kind is another ethical issue. This is important because participants should not suffer during the research and should leave any study in the same condition as when they arrived. Participants in Milgram’s study showed signs of extreme distress during his experiment, for example they were shaking, trembling and biting their lips - three participants had seizures. The participants in Zimbardo’s study were so distressed by their role as prisoner that the experiment had to be stopped after only 6 days.

Milgram and Zimbardo defended this by stating that they could not have known how distressed the participants were going to be. Milgram had surveyed his students prior to the experiment and they predicted that a maximum of 3% of participants would carry on to the full voltage. This shows that people did not believe that participants would carry on if they were distressed. Milgram also defends this issue by stating that in interviews later, 87% of the participant s were glad to have taken part and suffered no lasting damage from the experiment. In fact, some were pleased at what they had learned about themselves. This highlights the fact that not all distress is a negative thing. The participant may actually benefit from the experience in some way.

Ethical issues must be considered by ethics committees who review the potential harm that participants may suffer and weigh up whether this harm is justified or necessary for the hypothesis to be tested. If so then the committee will look at whether the benefits from the research are greater to the whole population than the distress caused to the individual participant. It may be that deception or distress are justifiable because the permanent effects on the individual are small whereas the potential benefit to the population from the research findings may be huge. An example of this would be Beaman et al (1978) who carried out an investigation to show this – they gave a lecture to students highlighting how bystander behaviour can affect an individual – explaining that if a bystander refuses to help someone in trouble, other bystanders will also refuse to help and the person in trouble could be in a worse situation. Two other groups of students heard either a different lecture or none at all. Two weeks later, all of the students (now participants) found themselves walking past someone who was slumped over a bike in the street. Of those who had heard the lecture about bystander behaviour, 50% stopped to help compared to 25% of the other students. This shows that the knowledge of research can make us more aware of our influences on behaviour and our impact on the society we live in. This raising of consciousness may improve the society we live in and enhance the experience of being human. In this case, the deception to the students was outweighed by the benefits to their nature and behaviour.

Ethical issues in the use of non-human animals in research.

When using animals in research, we have to consider ethical issues as the animal is unable to understand and agree to what is happening or withdraw form the study as a human can.

One ethical issue is distress or harm to the animal. Animal suffering must be kept to a minimum in research and the benefit must outweigh the cost. In some cases the suffering by the animal may not seem to outweigh the benefits of the findings. For example, the electrocution of dogs in Seligman’s research meant that the dog could not escape the pain and learned to give up hope of trying. This produced a theory of learned helplessness in human behaviour that may not justify the distress of the animals.

In some cases, the distress may produce some valuable findings. For example, Harlow separated rhesus monkeys from their mother at birth and caused distress to the baby by creating fear and physical pain through the use of a ‘monster mother’ to see if the monkey would still attach itself to an abusive mother. The findings from this research provided valuable information about how a newborn needs to bond with a parent or carer and changed the way premature babies were treated in hospital. However, the damage to the monkeys was often irreversible and affected the way the female monkeys treated their own young.

The law is strict on animal research – The Animals (Scientific |Procedures) Act 1989 states that all researchers using animals must hold a license from the Home office. Licences are only granted if the potential results are important enough to justify the use of animals – Bateson’s cube is used to make this decision. Only when the quality of the research and the benefits are high can any animal suffering be justified.

By law, the minimum number of animals must be used and dogs, cats or primates are only used when other species are not suitable. Any discomfort or suffering is kept to a minimum by appropriate use of anaesthetics or pain killer. Caging conditions should take into account the social behaviour of the species. Caging in isolation may be stressful to social animals; overcrowding may also cause distress, and possible harm through aggression.

The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection has criticized the Act, arguing that its main function is not to protect animals, but to protect researchers by permitting them to carry out acts that would be illegal outside a laboratory setting. They claim that "Under the 1986 Act, it is still perfectly legal for an animal in a laboratory to be unnaturally caged for its entire life; poisoned; deprived of food, water or sleep; subjected to psychological stress; brain damaged; paralyzed; surgically mutilated; irradiated; burned; gassed; force fed, electrocuted and killed."

It may be better to use animals in their natural habitat rather than removing them and keeping them in a laboratory, especially if studying aggressive behaviour. Elwood (1991) suggests that, wherever possible, field studies of natural encounters should be used in preference to staged encounters. Where staged encounters are necessary, the use of models as targets should be considered. If live animals are used as potential targets for aggressive behaviour then continuous observation, with intervention to stop aggression at predefined levels, and provision of protective barriers and escape, are also strongly recommended.

Investigators studying free-living animals should take precautions to minimise interference with individuals as well as the populations and eco-systems of which they are a part. Capture, marking, or field experiments may not only have immediate effects on the animal, but may also have longer term consequences such as a reduced probability of survival and reproduction.

Researchers and technicians conducting procedures have the necessary training, skills and experience and research premises have the necessary facilities to look after the animals properly. Once the research has finished, the animal must be disposed of in an ethical way. It may sometimes be appropriate to distribute animals to colleagues for further study, breeding or as companion animals. However, if animals are distributed in any of these ways, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that they continue to receive a high standard of care.

This was not always the case, for example, Washoe was adopted by the Gardners and raised as part of the family. She was always in the company of other researchers and never left alone. However, after two years when the research was finished, she could not be returned to the wild and was housed at the university where she died some 40 years later. This may have caused Washoe some confusion and distress at being isolated – chimps are very social creatures. The benefits in knowledge about the nature of language may not justify 40 years of suffering to a primate.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download