Non human animals Flashcards
atus
To be scientific refers to the attainment of knowledge based on systematic and objective methods of data collection that can be replicated to demonstrate reliability and validity. It is concerned with what we know to be true rather than what we simply believe to be true. This allows us to predict the world and human behaviour. This often includes falsifiable evidence, standardised procedures, objective standards of measure and the random allocation of ppts. An example of this is Loftus and Palmer’s study which made us of a laboratory experiment to observe the effect of leading questions on memory, controlling extraneous variables to ensure the IV directly affected DV.
One benefit of psychology being considered a science is objectivity. By collecting data in objective way, ensures researchers do not display bias or prejudice when conducting psychological investigations. Raine et al used PET scans to make observations on the differences in brain function between non-murderers and murderers pleading NGRI. Through the use of highly scientific and objective brain scans, he found that differences did exist, like reduced activity in areas like the prefrontal cortex and occipital lobe. Research like this suggests that objectivity is a benefit as researchers do not form conclusions based on own subjectivity but on scientific faces, so psychology should be considered a science.
However, it is not always possible for psychological information to be collected with minimum bias and prejudice from researchers. Although psychology does use scientific methods like experiments and brain scans, it also makes use of non-scientific methods to collect qualitative data like case studies and interviews. For example, Bowlby used a case study that concluded that juvenile thieves committed crime as a result of maternal deprivation in the early stages of development. These conclusions could have been subjective as Bowlby wanted to prove hypothesis, so only collected information which he deemed relevant to his theories, and children and mothers could have displayed social desirability bias during the interviews. A cost of psychology as a science as these qualitative methodologies could not be used and experiments would be favoured. Qualitative information would not be gathered which gives great insight into reasons for behaviour. Psychology cannot solely rely on quantitative, scientific methods and therefore cannot be defined as a science, as qualitative information about ppts allows for better therapies tailored to the individual’s needs. It provides a more human view of behaviour that is eliminated with qualitative data that can be shallow and provide little insight.
However, another point of benefit is through paradigm. This is the set of assumptions, ways of thinking, methods and terminology shared by a group about what should be studied and how. Psychology started with Wundt’s Introspectionism and later moved onto behaviourism and now cognitive psychology, so could argue that if approaches taken on their own, psychology does have its own paradigm. Valentine concluded that behaviourism should be classed as a science as it has a one set paradigm, that all behaviour learnt from external forces and not innate. Behavioursm is scientific as it only studies what is observed and objectively measured. Therefore each approach of psychology having its own set paradigm that does not change is a benefit of classing it as a science.
It may not be able to be classed as a science as psychology itself does not have one set paradigm. There are many difference approaches to psychology like biological, positive and cognitive within each having different paradigms. Biological psychologists differ in opinions of whether mental illness caused by genetics, evolution or brain structure. In the psychodynamic approach argued whether aggression arises from the domination of the id or from childhood trauma. Therefore not feasible for psychologists to solely rely on scientific methods. There cannot be one clear set paradigm in psychology as if it it did, there would not be ability to create holistic theories and therapies which can aid the mental health of an individual.
Another key point is replicability. If research can be carried out time and time again and similar results are achieved each time, it can be concluded to be reliable. Reliability is how consistent something is. Lab experiments are the only method in psychology that are truly replicable because of high levels of control that they allow. For example Loftus and Palmer’s research on eyewitness testimony would be easy to replicate as one video of a car accident was used with five specific verbs. Such replicability and standardisation in psychology is a benefit as if it is repeated and proven to be reliable, then it heightens status of research and field of psychology overall.
Although replicability is scientific, methodologies and ppts used in psychology mean not always possible to replicate research. For example in Watson and Rayner, Little Albert (11 months at start of conditioning) formed a phobia of white rat. Due to fact of only one male baby being used, nearly impossible to fully replicate the research and no other ppt would have exact same upbringing or temperament as Little Albert. As replicability is not always possible, reliability of research can’t be tested and validated = not scientific.
Over time, definition of what constitutes science has changed and this has impacted psychology. Early philosophers used only observation and logic, but today use scientific methodologies to draw conclusions on human behaviour. Today, most psychologists do not identify with single branch of psychology but draw many ideas together. Since psychology has many different theories, approaches and methodologies, it may not have scientific status yet. However, certain areas do fulfil criteria of science with falsifiable theories and reliable findings. However this does not apply to all aspects and should consider why it should and shouldn’t be considered science.
The issue of using non-human animals in psychology is there may be conflict between larger societal interest and potential harm to animals. There are also questions if this testing on animals is relevant to psychologists in the first place.
British Psychological Guidelines require the implementation of three Rs (proposed by Russel and Birch) in psychological research: replacement of animals wherever possible, reduction of use to the animals to bare minimum and refinement of psychological procedures to reduce their suffering. The BPS requires that animals must be treated in context to their past experience and that the responsibility of care extends to even when they are not being studied. This includes providing companions to social animals for example if dogs or wolves being studied.
There are multiple barriers ensuring ethical research with animal testing, like legislation. Legislation is the strongest defence against animal suffering, including the Animals Act 1986. This protects animals by ensuring that only the most necessary psychological research that causes distress to animals is performed. This reduces the overall suffering of animals in psychological research as it is strengthened by the presence of three conditions which must be fulfilled in order to grant permits to carry out the research.
Another barrier is Benson cube proposing a system to assess three criteria including the effectiveness and ethics of psychological research to animals. The rigorous evaluation of the research method before the study ensures that there is a balance between potential distress to the animal and scientific/social benefits. Licenses are only granted by Home Office is the research is of high quality, if animal suffering is minimal (hard to measure as some animals silent when threatened) and if there is high likelihood that the research will bring about benefit. Supports as shows that use of nonhuman animals can be made ethical with strict guidelines.
Some psychologists argue that the solution is to prevent all suffering of NHAs which would involved completely banning animal testing. Other than legislation, only guidelines exist to protect the animals and these do not have be respected by researchers in practicality. This argument is supported by Dunayer who says that implementing limitations rather than outright ban is synonymous with codified norms and legislation of black enslavement in America. Legality and morality are completely different concepts, and just because the use of animals in psych research is legal in many cases, it does not mean it is moral. Using them also suggests that humans are superior to other animals, which is not the case.
Specieism is the concept that being human means one should justifiably have greater moral rights than NHAs. Peter Singer describes it as prejudice or bias in favour of interest of members of one’s own species against those of another. Singer argued that specieism is no different than racial or gender discrimination. However, Gray suggests we have special duty of care to humans so speciesm is not equivalent to the likes of racism. A utilitarian suggestion would be for the greater good of human kind, non-human animals should be used within research to provide explanations that can help fix and understand behaviour. Having rights as an individual or collective is dependent on having responsibilities which non-human animals do not have, although one could argue that they may have ecological responsibility. For example bees are pollinators which maintain the ecosystem and symbiotic relationships between species that benefit us too.
Another reason NHA are used in psychology is because of the benefits of animals pets as therapeutic devices to reduce stress. Allen (2003) reported that the presence of pets reduced blood pressure in children reading aloud, supported the elderly against life stresses and reduced cardiovascular risk. Animal Assisted Therapy can help develop bonds between client and animal and encourage verbal interactions, which can enable disturbed or socially isolated individuals to learn how to form attachments with others. These therapies usually include use of dogs, cats, horses or even fish as ‘behaviour facilitators’.
However, other research has criticised studies like Allen’s. Anestis et al reviewed 14 studies of equine therapy and found there were numerous serious methodological issues. These included small samples, no control groups and no random allocation to treatment groups. The benefits observed may have simply been due to special treatment from the therapist, not the animal assisted therapy itself. This would suggest that the therapist-client relationship is vital rather than the presence of an animal supporting them.
Overall important to consider that it is not as simple as saying all animal research should stop. For example, British law requires that any new drug be tested on at least 2 different species of live mammal and this can result in some degree of pain and suffering for animals involved. Whilst this is problematic, drugs allow those with mental illness to lead more normal lives and can offer insight into addictions. Less than 1% of research is done on protected species, and usually done for medicine rather than psychology now. Important to recognise that if research on NHA was stopped this would negatively impact research opportunities that could find new treatments for issues in behaviour. However society is changing and animal rights activism is at its highest now more than for a long time. Must recognise that alternative methods must be explored for psychological and medical research to ensure everyone can access treatment.
Culture refers to rules, customs, morals and ways of interacting that bind together members of a society or a group of people. Culture bias is the tendency of people to make assumptions about the behaviour of others based on their own cultural norms and practices, and occurs in two forms. Alpha bias is when theory assumes that cultural groups are profoundly different and recognition of these differences must be present in psychological research. Beta bias, on the other hand, is when cultural differences are ignored or minimised and all people assumed to be the same so universal research designs and conclusions made. This can be a disadvantage as it lowers the validity, for instance the presence of beta bias may mean that standards of measure produce unrepresentative results as it doesn’t consider differences in culture. There is a lack of cross-cultural studies in psychology. In a standard British psychology textbook, 66% of the studies were American, 32% European and less than 2% from other countries. This is an issue as the predominant understanding of psychology comes from a Western perspective, and is not representative of global psychological behaviour.
A way to address cultural bias is distinction between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. Ethnocentrism is seeing the world only from one’s own cultural perspective and believing that this one view is both normal and correct. This is often a lack of awareness that other ways of seeing things can be as valid as one’s own. This damages external validity of studies and the applicability of their social implications. For example, in Milgram’s study on obedience it was proposed that mechanisms of obedience were identical across cultures, which may not be true. In his original study, he only used white males from the area of New Haven. This small sample may not show the levels of obedience in other groups like in Eastern cultures. Cultural relativism insists that behaviour can only be properly understood if cultural context is considered. Therefore, any study that draws sample from only one cultural context and then generalises its findings to all people is invalid. Loftus and Palmer used the responses of American college students to conclude that leading questions can manipulate memory recollection.
Whether results are differences between cultures or bias is highlighted by Hofstede. Individualistic cultures emphasise self-interest and immediate family whilst collectivist culture emphasis loyalty to the group and interdependence on each other. Myers and Diener study measured subjective wellbeing but this could vary depending on whether it was a collectivist or individualistic culture, so conclusions of differences may have been due to beta bias rather than genuine differences. Studies used methodologies that could not be universally applied and therefore discovered differences that may not actually exist, it is just a flaw in the procedure. This can amplify and validate damaging stereotypes. For example, the US army used an IQ test before WWI which was culturally biased towards white majority. This showed African Americans at bottom of IQ scale and had negative effect on attitudes of Americans’, highlighting negative impact of culturally biased research.
The historical and social context behind research must also be carefully considered. Applicability may differ depending on when it was conducted and the ppts involved. Sears found that 82% of psychological research used undergraduates as ppts, with 51% of which being those who studied psychology. This is an issue as the beliefs and behaviours demonstrated may only be relevant to that group. Loftus and Palmer.
Contemporary psychologists are significantly more open-minded and well-travelled than before, and an increased understanding of cultures is showing both personally and psychologically. International psychology conferences that are held help increase exchange of ideas between psychologists which can reduce ethnocentrism in psychology and enable a more nuanced understanding and appreciation of cultural relativism, differences can be identified and valued.
Heightened awareness has lead to something called ‘Indigenous Psychology’, the development of theories on different groups, like Afrocentrism. This suggests that as all black people have roots in Africa, theories must be centred around Africa. This is incredibly important to represent behaviour in specific cultures and demonstrates how psychology is gradually shifting to eliminate cultural bias. It may not be possible to always give a universal representation of behaviour, as budgets are limited and studies may not be relevant in other societies, but it is much improved from before when there was a lack of communication in psychological bodies across the world.
Ethics costs in psychology refer to the ways psychological research can affect the rights and health of the ppts involved, techniques that can be implemented to mitigate the risks, and benefits and costs to society and economy that come from such research. These can involve deception, protection from psychological/physiological harm and the right to withdraw. Ethical guidelines propose that ppts should experience no greater harm than they would in everyday life, and leave research in the psychological state they were when they entered. An example of this not being abided by was in Watson and Rayner’s study, when little Albert continued to show fear response toward white rats and similar stimuli a long time after research was finished. This long-term effect was unethical to subject the child to and meant his life and psychological state was altered after the research.
Benefits to society + economy
Although Watson and Rayner’s study of Little Albert subjected him to intense psychological distress, it did highlight the importance of environmental determinism on behaviour. These findings helped to pave the way for numerous effective behaviourist therapies, including systematic desensitisation and aversion therapy, used to counter-condition phobias. Systematic desensitisation works on the principles that phobias arise from direct or transferred conditioned response, in which the feared object produces a fear response. Through the therapy, the client learns to establish a new stimulus-response link through an anxiety hierarchy where they will face situations involved the feared object until they produce a calm response.
This provides a positive benefit to society, as less people will suffer from distress from feared stimulus and can live regular lives where they are not burdened by the need to avoid particular environments or deny opportunities, and can improve overall wellbeing as less stress in lives. It can also contribute to economy as there will be more workers pursuing otherwise avoided jobs, like a pilot, due to their fears.
Through the findings of Watson and Rayner, conditioning techniques could be implemented in schools to boost levels of learning. These techniques were demonstrated as useful by McAllister et al’s study where teachers gave praise to students that behaved appropriately and disapproved of those who did not. This was found to reduce the incidence of inappropriate behaviour, fostering a better learning environment due to domino effect on other students who mirrored the good behaviour of their peers. Loftus and Palmer’s study also contributed to society by revolutionising the criminal justice system. By showing the effect on memory of leading questions, interrogation methods used by court and police were altered to ensure accurate witness testimonies could be given and there were less cases of injustice. Wrongful convictions not only are incredibly harmful to those who are innocent, but threatens the security of society by leaving dangerous individuals to roam free without being caught.
Raine et al’s study on the difference in brain function between controls and murderers pleading not guilty due to reasons of insanity highlighted the usefulness of brain scans. In psychological research, brain scans can be implemented to provide objective evidence to understand complex phenomena in behaviour, such as violence. Through these findings, those who display brain function typical of a certain negative characteristic can undergo preventative measures, like medical interventions, therapy etc. This can harbour a more positive society where those who need help can seek it, and less harm to all members within society.
However, there are times when there are potentially negative consequences to society, like reinforcing stigmas against certain demographics that cannot be justified as ethical costs of psychological research. Bowlby’s study on maternal deprivation did highlight the importance of parenting, but fuelled stigma against mothers with disobedient children. This could have contributed to additional societal pressure for the mothers to raise children that can function and operate within society, even though in reality many factors of this delinquent behaviour out of control of the mother. Whilst the popular belief was that behaviour was caused by neglect from the mother, explanations like the role of the amygdala and genes such as the MAOA and CDH13 suggest that these can predispose people to criminal behaviour, and it is biologically determined. Therefore, assuming the care of the mother is all a child needs to develop into an adequate member of society is not only wrong, it is harmful to mothers who feel extreme guilt for pursuing their careers, and leaves children that have these dysfunctions or predispositions to be deprived of intervention techniques that could actually prevent them from committing crime.
This is a strong argument as other studies like Raine’s also contributed to stigma against those with similar brain scans to the murderers pleading NGRI. The unregulated use of information found from brain scans can pose massive risks to society as organisations like the government could use them to discriminate against people with similar brain function, although it was urged by Raine that social and psychological factors are also vital in the development of violent behaviour. Members of society could be unfairly treated in court simply due to their biology even though this is not the sole factor that determines behaviour. As well as this, the unregulated use of the conclusions of Loftus and Palmers research could be incredibly unethical, as interrogation techniques may be developed to distort and manipulate memory if certain information is desired.
Costs to the individual
Watson and Rayner causes Little Albert to develop coping mechanisms for trauma like thumb sucking after being exposed to repeated loud sounds and stimuli he was taught to be distressed by. Other studies like Milgram’s induced major psychological and physical harm. Ppts were led to believe that they had possibly caused the death of the learner who was being shocked by them. They displayed signs of distress like digging nails into palms and trembling, and 3 of them even had uncontrollable seizures causing the research to be halted. This level of harm would not be experienced in everyday life and therefore cannot be justified as an ethical cost of psychological research.
Despite this, Milgram used risk management techniques to negate the ethical costs. Participants were all debriefed and offered counselling following the research allowing them to return to their original psychological state, and a further survey said that some even improved in their mental state with the support offered. Prior to the research, discussions were held with professors and students to gain presumptive consent assuming that there wouldn’t be psychological harm inflicted. This was partly due to the fact that the Yale students predicted only 3% would go to 400V, which is when the ‘learner’ would be non-responsive and therefore induce panic and harm in the ppt. Before this it was believed that the responses from the learner would not be disturbing enough to cause psychological distress. The presence of an ethical committee is another risk management technique which reduces ethical costs, as they will only approve of research if they deem it as ethically sound and believe it will not cause damage to anyone involved.
A problem with this however is that research does not always turn out as expected. Watson and Rayner did not carry out detachment as planned as Little Albert was withdrawn from the study and therefore left with psychological harm that had previously been scheduled to be reduced and counter-conditioned. Zimbardo’s study had also been predicted for prisoners to riot, not that a tyrannical reign would occur. Cannot put strategies in place to deal with ethical issues they did not know would arise, difficult to participate how ppts will react in situations, but important to learn about this behaviour.
Overall, can be argued that psychological research will always face ethical issues. Studying human behaviour is complex and even when researchers believe they have met ethical standards, cannot always predict human behaviour and impossible to account for all ethical issues which may arise. Psychology has scientific obligation to conduct research and should have freedom to explore areas to advance our knowledge and understanding of behaviour, even though sometimes this may come at cost to ppts well-being.
