Controvasies Flashcards
What is the definition of a science?
-scientific status controversy
-something is deemed as a science, if it has the ability to be falsifiable (be tested to be proved or disproved), if What is being studied is objective (free from bias), if the study produced is replicable, if there are high-level of control and what is being studied and if the data produced is empirical.
What 3 points do we argue for the scientific status of psychology controversy?
-methodology used by the approaches
-changing nature of a science
-benefits of being a science
What is your argument for methodology used by the approaches
-Scientific status controversy
-One issue with describing psychology as a science, is that there are different approaches under the discipline of psychology which use variety of methodologies, and some do not fit in within the features of science.
-for example, the psychodynamic approach as a part of psychology, has the assumption of childhood stages (which is where we develop our ID, ego and super ego), this is only a theory and cannot be tested, as our ID, ego, etc, is only a concept and can’t be physically tested. This shows how it is unfalsifiable and is not objective as evidence cannot be gathered to support the theory.
-However, there are other approaches in psychology which can be considered to be scientific based on the methodology they employ:
-for example, the biological approach can be considered to be scientific as it involves objective falsifiable study’s. For example, raine used PET scans on NGRI murderers. This is scientific as he found objective evidence to show the difference in glucose metabolism in different brain Regions. The study also had high levels of control due to participants being off medication, the setting being a lab experiment and having a control group. This also shows how the study can be retested and reconducted.
What is your argument for the benefits of being a science
-Scientific status controversy
-early psychologists to create a science of psychology to give the discipline more credibility, give more empirical evidence to support theories of human behaviour that was being created.
-an example of a scientific study of psychology would be Loftus and Palmer, study on eyewitness testimony and false memory, due to leading questions. Loftus and Palmer, provided evidence to show the impact on critical questions on the participants memory. Loftus and Palmer, provided objective data as a study, was high in control (due to a lab experiment and a standardised procedure). This has led to the definite knowledge of leading questions and the understanding of how eyewitness testimony is not reliable separating fact from opinion, about leading questions.
-they are benefits that come from being a science as when research lack scientific rigour, unfounded claims can be made about human behaviour that can potentially be harmful. An example of this would be the refrigerator of the theory of autism. This theory was unfalsifiable and couldn’t be tested for. when this theory was released It led to Mothers being blamed for their own children having autism, leading into a social sensitivity. However, later on this theory was found to be incorrect and proven against, showing how mothers were shamed when the facts were not true. This shows how scientific methods allow for the separation of fact (loftus and Palmer) and opinion (refrigerator Mother). Objective scientific evidence leads to a greater understanding of human behaviour, without scientific factors Consequences can be harmful, as it is opinion.
What is your argument for the changing nature of a science
-Scientific status controversy
The idea of science changes with time. The idea that theory’s should be based on evidence and should be controlled and replicable, seems like common sense. However, science as a method has evolved over the centuries constantly been changed and refined, this is also true in psychology.
-for example, the change in nature of science, shows the scientific changes made in psychology overtime, for example, Wundt was considered to be scientific at the time, due to his intent to make psychology, more credible and scientific. Psychology, then moved onto the behaviourist assumption which move back to using scientific methods, such as observations. from this, the cognitive and biological approaches were developed, these appeared to be heavily experimental and use a lot of scientific methodology. For example, the biological approach was developed to the gene Mapping became a method of tracking inherited genes. lastly psychology moved on and was developed towards cognitive neuroscience, this is currently seen to be the peak of scientific study in psychology as we are finding biological causes for psychological theories, in order to treat disorders.
-however, not all psychological approaches, continued to develop alongside science and technology. for example Freud was not considered to be scientific due to his main use of case studies and non-scientific research methods. After this, the humanist approach was developed, this moved away from objective and systematic research and moved more towards ideographic theory’s, about focusing on yourself. Lastly, from the humanist approach, the positive approach was developed, although this does aim to study positive psychology in a scientific way, it is not always possible due to the nature of the approach as it has concept which are not physical so therefore, cannot be studied scientifically.
-therefore, although not all disciplines of psychology, have developed alongside science, psychology has moved from philosophical investigation towards more legitimate science. However, to solidify scientific status. More all of the disciplines of psychology would need to follow the same scientific concepts.
What topics do you argue for the ethical costs of conducting research controversy?
-potentially negative consequences for society
-benefits to society
-risk management techniques
What is meant by the ethical costs of conducting research
-controversy intro
-this debate argues, whether or not the benefits of psychological research, outweigh the ethical costs to individual participants or society.
-some people believe the ethical cost of participants is never justified, however, this is too much of a simplistic view, A psychological research can have both ethical costs as well as benefits as shown in this debate.
What is your argument for the negative consequences of society
-ethical costs of conductive research controversy
-research in psychology that breaks ethical codes and guidelines can potentially lead to socially sensitive research, this is research that has potentially negative consequences for those involved. This could either be the participants or the group the research represents.
-an example of this would be Bowlbys study into maternal deprivation. Bobbie found that Mother is primary caregiver is important, he studied 44 thieves and found their children are more likely to be thieves if they experienced frequent separations from their mothers in early childhood.
-This research was socially sensitive as it led to a negative stigma around single fathers or mothers, who weren’t really available. it placed more of a pressure upon Mums To step in and parent their children. However, although the research was socially sensitive, the benefits found the effects of maternal deprivation on children.
-another example of socially sensitive research was the refrigerator Mother theory for ASD. This stated that cold, emotionally unavailable parents, especially mothers, led to the development of ASD in their children. This lead social sensitivity as mothers were being blamed for their child’s ASD, there were little benefits that came from this as it was found that the research was incorrect so the damage towards the mothers was for nothing.
-however, although research can be socially sensitive, it is still important
that is conducted, as controversial ideas, usually push societal progress and without studying controversial ideas, it would leave psychologists with no study but unimportant issues. Also As shown within Bowlby study, although research can be socially sensitive positive findings can be made which can then be applied to help society.
-therefore, socially sensitive research is important, but it is important that the researcher is aware the results can be damaging so psychologists should publish a research in a sensitive manner.
What is your argument for the benefits to society
-ethical costs of conductive research controversy
-sometimes she sensitive research needs to be conducted to gain results which we would not gain by conducting research in another way, therefore also gaining for society
-an example of this is, Watson and Rayners study on little Albert. Watson and Raynor conditioned a fear response in Albert towards a rat by associating-a loud noise with the rat.
if the study was not conducted in this way, then it would never have been found out that fears can be conditioned, also the research could not have been conducted differently as a fear needed to be conditioned, so they had to associate a negative experience with the rat.
-also it can be said that the ethical issues Albert endured are justified due to the benefits that society gained from this study. For example, systematic desensitisation has been developed from this as we’ve learnt that fears can be conditioned, so therefore can also be counterconditioned. this shows how conditioning a fear in Albert has led to the development of a therapy which can help the general society with their fears.
-overall, although Albert went through emotional harm and the study could’ve been more ethical to reduce the emotional harm(e.g. counterconditioning him). The study itself can be justified due to the positive application of Sd and the knowledge of fears to society.
What is your argument for risk management techniques
-ethical costs of conductive research controversy
-due to some studies, raising ethical costs, risk management techniques have been developed.
-for example, it was clear that Milgram study raised a lot of ethical cost for psychological research from the ethical issues inflicted on his participants. For example, some of his participants experienced extreme emotional harm, leading into seizures. also Milgram used deception, an example of this was that he told his participants that the study was on memory and learning when it was really on obedience and consequence.
-however, it can be argued that Milgram did not expect the amount of participants to go up to 450 V, originally Milgram predicted like less than half would. This suggests that they didn’t originally anticipate the ethical issues which would arise with the research.
-However, from studies like Milgrams study, ethics committees were developed. These are panels of experts for psychological research who examine proposals and then make recommendations to the research for improvements.
- These improvements are to reduce ethical costs, however, it is up to the researcher whether they want to take the proposals on or not
-ethical committees also produce ethical guidelines based on specific situations which gives an appropriate code of research. However, these guidelines are not enforced.
-this shows how unethical studies such as milligrams study on a obedience, have led to the development of ethics committees in psychology, to help predict the negative ethical issues that can arise from research in order to prevent this.
-This shows that although research has been unethical in the past, it was necessary in order for us to learn from this, and develop codes and guidelines to prevent this in the future.
What is the non-human animal controversy?
Into
-psychology is primary based on human behaviour, animals are often also used within psychological studies. Often animals maybe harmed with the studies, and it can be argued that the suffering from the animals does not justify the scientific findings. So from this controversy, we are trying to work out if the cost of using animals in research is justified for the benefits of what we learn about human behaviour.
What 3 topics do we argue about for the controversy of non-human animals?
-animals as a therapeutic device
-speciesism
What is your argument for animals as a therapeutic device?
-nonhuman animals controversy
-The use of animals as a therapeutic advice in psychology may be a good thing as animal assisted therapy has been developed.
-Animal assisted therapy is a therapy which chooses animals and therapist help the patient overcome psychological issues. An example of this would be the use of equine therapy on individuals with ASD, this therapy works well as it involves little communication and requires more non-verbal communication, in order for the individual of ASD to understand the horses needs. Aswell as this, equine therapy has been used to help patients with history of trauma as it helps to build up trust and confidence.
-Aqua therapy also works for relatively well as horses mirror behaviour which would help create a bond and trust with the patient.
-another type of animal therapy will be canine therapy, this works well on patience with mood disorders as a presence of an animal promotes the body to release serotonin oxytocin, which will provide the person with feelings of joy and happiness, therefore reducing some symptoms of depression.
-another strength of using animal assisted therapy would be that studies, provide encouraging evidence. For example, Erica Friedman reviewed 28 studies which used animal assisted therapy and found that the studies all provided benefits for the participants involved, especially the studies which use schizophrenic and down syndrome and patients.
-however, it can be argued that there are negatives of using animal assisted therapy. For example, it can be argue to be speciesism, as we are treating humans to be more important as we are using dogs, horses et cetera for our own benefit. as well as this animal of assisted therapy would not be suitable for all participants as it would not be suitable to those allergies or those who have a fear of certain animals.
-therefore this shows the benefits of animal assisted therapy and how it can be used to help support those with ASD mood, disorders, schizophrenia, etc. It can be argued that animal assisted therapy. We are treating humans as superior. however, overall, as no harm comes to the animals during animal, assisted therapy, and assisted therapy has provided significant benefits for those with mental health disorders, I believe that this overall shows how the benefits of using animals for therapy outweighs the costs.
What is your argument for speciesism?
-nonhuman animals controversy
-speciesism is an important argument when it comes to the controversy of non-human animals. There are two stances around speciesism, this would be the utilitarian stance (what is right, is whatever brings the greatest good, so if using animals for research brings benefits, it is justified) and a absolute stance (no animal experiment is ethical ever, therefore no animal studies can be justified).
-an example of a study, which uses animals for the benefit of psychology would be segment study on learned helplessness. He used two groups of dogs: one group was previously exposed to electric shocks which they couldn’t escape, and the other group of dogs wasn’t. The groups of dogs were then placed into a box, one side of the box was electric, and the other side wasn’t this was separated by a divider, which the dogs could easily jump over. it was found those who were previously exposed to the electric shocks didn’t jump over, showing the idea of learnt helplessness. A utilitarian stance for this research would be that from this, we have developed our understanding of mood disorders to show how humans can become vulnerable to depression, therefore showing how the research has better idea of mood disorders. This would suggest that the harm to the animals is justified from the research learnt. However, an absoluteist stance would be that this study is unjustifiable and ethically wrong due to the harm and electric shocks the dogs endured. They would argue. This is speciesism as we are using the pain of the dogs to our advantage by saying that we are worth more than the dogs.
- overall using animals in psychological research, does lead to animals with near human intelligence and sentiment being used for psychological research. However, it also can be argued the animals are killed all the time for human purpose eg. Food. So using an animal such a dog for psychological research is more ethical than how we treat animals in dates day life. Also the study from this argument shows how Milgram did cause physical harm to the dogs for human benefit. However, we did gain research from this. This shows that animals should still be used in psychological research, however, procedures and ethical guideline should be put in place to limit the harm, the animals animals endure.
What is your argument for bps guidelines for psychologists working with animals ?
-nonhuman animals controversy
-from conducting research involving the unethical use of animals, code and guidelines have been put into place to develop and promote the ethical use of animals.
-An example of this, would be the learn helplessness study. For example, Two groups of dogs were used. One group of the dogs was placed into a box which they couldn’t escape with an electric floor, therefore electrocuting the dogs. The other group had no previous electric shocks.
Both groups of dogs with them placed in another box, one half of the box had an electric floor and the other half of the box didn’t, this was divided by a short cardboard divider, which the dogs could jump over. However, it was found that the dogs are which were previously exposed to electric shocks didn’t jump over. Some people would argue this study to be un ethical, due to the electric shocks and the harms, the dogs endured. However, it can be argued that studies like this where necessary, as from them, we have learnt about the unethical treatment of animals, so that now codes and guidelines have been in place. For example, the bps guidelines around animals states that causing pain, suffering or distress against any protected species is against their act. This shows how some unethical studies were needed to promote the use of ethical animal usage in psychology.
