Issues & Debates Flashcards
Socially sensitive research
E.g., race, gender, sexuality, Lombroso, scientific racism
Implications of SSR
Use of research - pub pol & justi harmful laws for ppl studied / soc could it lead to discrimination
= why cost & benefit analysis should be done before the study
Ethics of SSR
Ptps - impact on orgs - neg coverage decreases profs
Confidentiality = NB else could cause a self fulfilling prophecy
E.g., say something bad about community
Validity of SSR
Are conc obj & bias free
If = bias must highlight & reflect on
Sieber & Stanley (1988) 4 groups = affected 1. Mems of soc group 2. Friends & relas 3. Research team 4. Instit
Negative Example of SSR
Hadow Report (1926) research linking intl to genetic factors can = Soc sensitive e.g., Cyril Burt used iden twin studies to support report - created 11+ & affected gens - falsified data
Examples of SSR
Hammer (1993) carried out genetic studies on gay men - correl patterns in DNA - male homo = affected by genes & have no choice - environ = little dif - evolved bc of advantages in Soc groups
Raine (1996) carried out brain scans of violent crims & found tended to have subtle damage to impul control area = marker - if screened could stop
For SSR
M research still on white MC USAs = 90% SSR = helping to bal & make cul aware
Can show institutional probs - Rosenhan’s 1973 study on US psych hospitals - showed dehuman treatment of vul patients & pushed for overhaul of care practices & standards
Can benefit society - EWT can = flawed - needs corrob & children = as reliable
Against SSR
Often navi complex ethics - bal findings w/ harm & ptps
Badly conducted research can stigmatise / marginalise groups = neg social consequences
Can = pol controversial - might discourage funding / suppress results
Ideographic
Focus on individual & recog of uniqueness
Private subjective & conscious experiences
Qualitative methods
No gen laws because of chance free will & uniqueness
E.g., case studies, self reports, personal docs
Allport argued can = obj if detailed & in depth
Nomothetic
Attempts of establishing laws and gens
Obj knowledge thought scientific methods
Quantitative
3 types of groups = classifying people into groups, estab principles & estab dimensions
Group averages are stat analysed to create preds
Ideographic Examples
Freud = CS - little hans life events & interp did produce some gens but = I drawn from this
Carl Rogers - humanist Q sort cards self eval statements
Allport found 18,000 sep terms describing personal traits some = common others unique based on experience can’t = effectively studied w/ stan tests
Examples of Nomothetic
Bio Approach
Behaviourism
Millers magic 7
P&P
Zimbardo
Interactionist
N Vs I
N = m scientific makes gen laws I = time consuming if use N once ques / exper = designed data collection = quick
Million Davi’s (1996) starts N & when have gen laws use I might shed m light e.g., HM
Freud = N theories I methods
Can see dif in N/I not just what psych wants also methods
Ethical Guidelines
Consent informed consent needed unless public place / field E
Deception need to justify
Debriefing
W/d
Confidentiality
Ptp protection - other than everyday
As long as can justify can pass eth implications refers to impact e.g., treatment of ptps, wider Soc impact, Influ on ppl & pub pol, treatment & perception of social groups
Bowlby Ethics
Suggests children form 1 special attachment usually with mum affects future relas though internal working model
Contrib to development of childcare practices
But encourages idea woman’s place = at home - some feel guilty
Milgram Ethics
Ptps = deceived & unable to give informed consent - caused sig distress & = coerced into contin but = debriefed & followed up 1 yr later
Zimbardo ethics
Uninformed consent - not aware of how bad it would be
Deception - didn’t think about the arrest b4
Debrief
Thank you
Reassure = normal
Tell can w/d
Give contacts
Tell true nature
Deal w/ deception
Remind of confi and how
Hard Determinism
No action/ behav = free - has a cause - rather than other
Soft Determinism
= direct result of environment- to certain extent = some free will - outside control
Psychic Determinism
Freud behavs argue behav = learnt from external factors
Environmental Determinism
Deter by outside fs can’t control - link to soft
Biological Determinism
Factors inside inheri behav / genes links to hard
Free Will
Abil to make choice between behavs - personal responsibility fits well with Soc view of personal responsibility & legal system - implies behav = random & no cause / prediction
Examples of Determinism
P: Freud - unconscious
E: Pavlov, Bandura & Skinner
B: Lombroso, Buss
FW: humanists & Rogers
Determinism Evaluation
Scientific, isolates variable = easier to examine, Soc willing to accept findings
Reduc, mech, implies prediction = pos doesn’t account for individual difs, no responsibility
Free Will Evaluation
Emphasis on individual, fits w/ ideas about personal responsibility suggests behav = free & undetermined
May = cul rela, can’t = tested, FW = situation no clear definition
Physiological Reductionism
Bio explans e.g., genetic, brain structure, neurochems,
Environmental Reductionism
Social learning & expers
Parisimony
Simplest form of reductionism
Holism
Any approach / study that looks at whole pic / individual - dif levels of explan emergent proposals can’t by reduced to the level below
Levels of Reductionism
Physiological (bio) explans, behav in terms of neurochems, genes & brain structure
Psych e.g., cog & behav
Soc & cul = highest explains behav in terms of influ of social groups
Reductionism Evaluation
Allows look at behav can = used to explain certain behav types & disorders = scientific & open to testing
Oversimplifies complex behav doesn’t consider affect factors can break down complex - simple
Holism Evaluation
Looks at everything that may impact behav considers m than 1 cause, allows detailed all round analysis
Doesn’t allow detail study not scientific doesn’t explain mental illness, over complicates behav may = simple explanation
Reductionism Links to Approaches
Bio: red = equated w/ physio red offering explans of behav in terms of physio mechs
Beh: uses v red vocab stim, response, used to explain behav - environ red
Cog: uses Mach red info processing uses analogy of machine to explain behav
Psych: red relies in basic strucs attempt to simplify complex structure
Holism Links
Hum: invests all aspects of individual & ppl interaction
Soc: looks at behav in Soc context group behav e.g., conform may show charas = greater than sum of ind
IDs: mental disorder often explained by bio, psych & environment factors interaction - eclectic approach to therapy - drugs and psycho therapy
Nature
Behav caused by innate charas & = determined by bio = inheri from ancestors & form genetic make up all pos behavs present from conception
Innate - bio / physio charas v born with
Genetic: genes provide blue print some prevent from birth others w/ age
Nurture
Deter by environ what = taught & observe - determine all human behav - result of interactions w/ environ = behav - no limit to what can achieve - environ quality = key
Nature Examples
MZ & DZ twins genetic effects = shown when correl comp w/ in each group added by by relative correlations ps = 50% DNA cousins = 12.5 %
Gottesman twin & adopt studies comp bio parents w/ adopt in twins looked at concor rates comp to separate out genes & environ A increased if bio have norm to Sz fam no sign high concor MZ = 58% DZ = 12%
Nurture Examples
Little Albert
Zimbardo
N Vs N A03:
Dif to see how much = n/n expers try to find out are not ethical & = too many EVs to estab causality
Interaction: behav as result of interaction charas may illicit response in other ppl e.g., temperament of infant deter caregiver response - sensitivity hypothesis = nurture Ainsworth - inconsistent = a-r, dismissive = a-a, sensitive = s Maguire et al environ can effect Freud, cog, cog neuroscience
Application of N vs N
Nurture: if behav is susceptible to environmental influences need to consider how adapt the environment to remote learning and decrease aggression
Nature: drug therapy to treat behav / psych problems e.g., SSRIs
Alpha Bias
Exag/overesti difs seen as fixed & inev m likely to devalue female/ heighten female value
Horney stated = wrong to think woman = envious of male attributes = jealous of class
Men = envious of child ability
Beta Bias
Ignores / minimises / underestimates difs
When female ptps aren’t sampled & assume = same
Kohlberg - women = morally inferior
Androcentrism
Possible A & B bias consequence bc if understanding of norm = drawn from research on all male samples then any deviating behav = abnormal & leads to females = misunderstood & pathologists seen as disorder
Gender Evidence
Freud believed fem = failed masc & can’t ever = equal position / worth women have lower morals no castration fear
Milgram initial study only men & = gen but = variations
Gender A03
Institutional sexism men predom senior level of research so follow male concerns - female = ignored
Fem - view of w as not deficient humans & scepticism to bio deter - research focusing on female concerns for women not of women = NB
Use standardised procedures m & w may respond dif w may = treated dif could create fake difs / make some
Dissemination of results pub bias = towards positive results finding difs = m likely to = pub & exag difs
Reverse alpha
Cornwall et al (2013) girls out perform boys on reading boys at least as good in maths & science - boys = graded less positively but when non cog skills consider goes away
Avoiding Beta
Hare-Mustin & Marecek (1988) primary gender meaning in psych = dif exag - alpha in research focus on showing difs beta in sims
WEIRD
Western
Educated
Industrialised
Rich
Democratic
Alpha bias
Emphasises / accentuates difs maybe to show some culs = better
Beta bias
Any theory presented to be about all ignores difs
Ethnocentrism
Belief in superiority of own cul in psych research may = commun though view any behavs that don’t conform = under developed
Cultural Relativism
Ainsworth assumed US model of A = normal imposed own culture = impose etic
Universality
Psych assumed all = same e.g., Asch & Milgram revealed dif results in dif culs
Imposed etic
Applying own cul understanding to another cul
Imposed emic
Look at culs differently
Culture Examples
Chitling Test (1968) designed to demo dif understanding in cul between races Af-As & WAs in determin how street wise someone is - no other studies demoing only face val no pred val shows IQ tests = biased
Ainsworth = imposed etic
Bias et all (1990)
Cultural A03
Trad cul distinc = col Vs I but Takano & Osaka (1999) found 14/ 15 studies that comp US & Japan found no evidence of trad distinc - not as big issue as originally thought
Operationalisation of variables - variables under review may not = same exper by all e.g., behav expres of Emos e.g., agress gives dif response e.g., in China invasion of personal space = norm UK = threat
Berry’s concept of etic = reminder that not all = neg even tho = probs some features of SS e.g., imitation & interactional synchrony = uni
One of bens = can challenge individual was of viewing world can promote m sensitivity & increase val if think cross cul
