Ethical Implications
- consequences on participants and group perceptions
- issues arise when conflict between valuable research findings and participant dignity
- Ethical guidelines: established to protect research participants but cannot prevent social impact post-research
- Ethical concerns:
- Researchers control methods and treatment of participants
- No control over media representation, public policy impact, or societal perceptions of groups
E.g Cyril Burt → MZ twins intelligence heritable (coefficient 0.77). Data inconsistency found, 2 research
assistants fake, 11+ exam impact later opportunities, still persisted despite discredit, peer review prevents such
fabrications, separating children on intelligence
Socially Sensitive Research
Controversial e.g genetic base of criminality (Lombroso) or IQ and race, sexuality, aggression
Media places attention on taboo topics
Psychologists shouldn’t shy from research - important for society - social responsibility to carry out
Sieblar and Stanely coined:
1) Research question (not damaging)
2) Methodology used
3) Institutional context (data usage, funding, intentions)
4) Interpretation and application of findings (RWA)
Scarr → important to study underrepresented groups
Promotes sensitivity and understanding, reduce prejudice, encourage acceptance
E.g mental health research - cause - helps break stigmas
1920s-30s America: compulsory sterilisation laws
Targeted ‘feeble-minded’, low intelligence, addicts and mentally ill
Supported by scientific and psychological communities, deemed ‘unfit’ to breed
Danger → vulnerable groups risk, used for social control, determining human worth, misuse of socially sensitive
research
1950s: research on subliminal messages used by marketers
Increased Coca-Cola and popcorn sales by subliminal images
Author Vance Packard made up findings
Danger → benefits marketing companies economically, manipulates public for profit, difficult to prevent misuse
post publish, misuse
Ethics committee review research - ethical/socially sensitive implications
Weigh cost vs benefit
Protects individuals in experiment, not external groups/broader harm ( e.g Cyril Burt)
Consequences unclear until published
Research ‘worth’ unknown until public
Reductionism and Holism
Reductionism → reduce complex behaviour into single basic components
E.g cognitive approach → machine reductionism (mind = computer)
Biological reductionism
Environmental reductionism - stimulus-response links
Experimental reductionism - operationalised variables, causal relationship
Levels of explanation - biological, psychological, social and cultural
Holism - system as a whole e.g humanistic approach
Gestalt approach - German - perception focused - consideration of whole
Strength reductionist
, - Scientific, operationalised variables e.g Ainsworth behavioural categories, valid and reliable e.g drug
treatments for SCZ Thornley et al - chlorpromazine vs placebo = reduced symptoms low relapse
- Greater credibility
Limitation reductionist
- Oversimplifying behaviour
- Reduces validity
- E.g dopamine hypotheses SCZ → no examination of social context (e.g family/environment)
- Noll et al → ⅓ antipsychotics don't work → other important factors
Limitation Holism
- Lacks practical value
- Holistic behaviour complex
- Humanistic perspective depression - many aspects of illness
→ Dk which part treat e.g personal relationships/past experiences
Lacks value, reductionism more useful
Interactionist approach
- multiple levels of explanation needed for behaviour
- Ranges from lower (biological) to higher (social, cultural) levels
- Interactionism - how different levels interact
- Holism - understanding the whole experience, not individual explanations
- Tarrier → 315 patients (medication+cbt)/(medication) = combined better than med
Nature vs Nurture
Nature - inherited influences/ brain structure.
- Hereditary
- Nativism - mental capacities (knowledge/abilities) innate NOT acquired by learning.
Schizophrenia biological - Gottensman, Ripke
Nurture - environment
empiricism - learning = experience and observations.
shared and nonshared environments
post or prenatal environment
Schizophrenia psychological → Bateson and Fromm-Reichmann
Maguire et al found that the region of taxi drivers' brains associated with spatial/navigational memory was bigger
than controls. hippocampus responded to increased use. Nurture affects nature - neural plasticity . experience
changes biology. Interactionist.
Epigenetics - genetic and environment less separated. 3rd element - life experience of previous generations. The
Dutch Hunger Winter - Nazis blocked food distribution to the Dutch women pregnant with low birth weight, babies
2x likely to develop SCZ in adulthood. Life experiences of generations can leave epigenetic markers influencing
offspring's health.
Real world application - interactionist - antipsychotics and family therapy.
Implications. Socially sensitive links to crime and not used in crime - Lombroso
- consequences on participants and group perceptions
- issues arise when conflict between valuable research findings and participant dignity
- Ethical guidelines: established to protect research participants but cannot prevent social impact post-research
- Ethical concerns:
- Researchers control methods and treatment of participants
- No control over media representation, public policy impact, or societal perceptions of groups
E.g Cyril Burt → MZ twins intelligence heritable (coefficient 0.77). Data inconsistency found, 2 research
assistants fake, 11+ exam impact later opportunities, still persisted despite discredit, peer review prevents such
fabrications, separating children on intelligence
Socially Sensitive Research
Controversial e.g genetic base of criminality (Lombroso) or IQ and race, sexuality, aggression
Media places attention on taboo topics
Psychologists shouldn’t shy from research - important for society - social responsibility to carry out
Sieblar and Stanely coined:
1) Research question (not damaging)
2) Methodology used
3) Institutional context (data usage, funding, intentions)
4) Interpretation and application of findings (RWA)
Scarr → important to study underrepresented groups
Promotes sensitivity and understanding, reduce prejudice, encourage acceptance
E.g mental health research - cause - helps break stigmas
1920s-30s America: compulsory sterilisation laws
Targeted ‘feeble-minded’, low intelligence, addicts and mentally ill
Supported by scientific and psychological communities, deemed ‘unfit’ to breed
Danger → vulnerable groups risk, used for social control, determining human worth, misuse of socially sensitive
research
1950s: research on subliminal messages used by marketers
Increased Coca-Cola and popcorn sales by subliminal images
Author Vance Packard made up findings
Danger → benefits marketing companies economically, manipulates public for profit, difficult to prevent misuse
post publish, misuse
Ethics committee review research - ethical/socially sensitive implications
Weigh cost vs benefit
Protects individuals in experiment, not external groups/broader harm ( e.g Cyril Burt)
Consequences unclear until published
Research ‘worth’ unknown until public
Reductionism and Holism
Reductionism → reduce complex behaviour into single basic components
E.g cognitive approach → machine reductionism (mind = computer)
Biological reductionism
Environmental reductionism - stimulus-response links
Experimental reductionism - operationalised variables, causal relationship
Levels of explanation - biological, psychological, social and cultural
Holism - system as a whole e.g humanistic approach
Gestalt approach - German - perception focused - consideration of whole
Strength reductionist
, - Scientific, operationalised variables e.g Ainsworth behavioural categories, valid and reliable e.g drug
treatments for SCZ Thornley et al - chlorpromazine vs placebo = reduced symptoms low relapse
- Greater credibility
Limitation reductionist
- Oversimplifying behaviour
- Reduces validity
- E.g dopamine hypotheses SCZ → no examination of social context (e.g family/environment)
- Noll et al → ⅓ antipsychotics don't work → other important factors
Limitation Holism
- Lacks practical value
- Holistic behaviour complex
- Humanistic perspective depression - many aspects of illness
→ Dk which part treat e.g personal relationships/past experiences
Lacks value, reductionism more useful
Interactionist approach
- multiple levels of explanation needed for behaviour
- Ranges from lower (biological) to higher (social, cultural) levels
- Interactionism - how different levels interact
- Holism - understanding the whole experience, not individual explanations
- Tarrier → 315 patients (medication+cbt)/(medication) = combined better than med
Nature vs Nurture
Nature - inherited influences/ brain structure.
- Hereditary
- Nativism - mental capacities (knowledge/abilities) innate NOT acquired by learning.
Schizophrenia biological - Gottensman, Ripke
Nurture - environment
empiricism - learning = experience and observations.
shared and nonshared environments
post or prenatal environment
Schizophrenia psychological → Bateson and Fromm-Reichmann
Maguire et al found that the region of taxi drivers' brains associated with spatial/navigational memory was bigger
than controls. hippocampus responded to increased use. Nurture affects nature - neural plasticity . experience
changes biology. Interactionist.
Epigenetics - genetic and environment less separated. 3rd element - life experience of previous generations. The
Dutch Hunger Winter - Nazis blocked food distribution to the Dutch women pregnant with low birth weight, babies
2x likely to develop SCZ in adulthood. Life experiences of generations can leave epigenetic markers influencing
offspring's health.
Real world application - interactionist - antipsychotics and family therapy.
Implications. Socially sensitive links to crime and not used in crime - Lombroso
