Please complete both Assignment A and B. For Assignment B, You must choose one o
ID: 3495994 • Letter: P
Question
Please complete both Assignment A and B. For Assignment B, You must choose one of the six experiments and write a one page analysis answering the three questions. Please write a one page part for B
Handout: Selecting the Best Method
For the following hypotheses, select which method works best for studying the issue. Explain how you would go about obtaining a sample, collecting the data, and analyzing the data for each hypothesis.
1.
Jogging will increase lung capacity.
2.
Presidents of the United States will report problems with their marriage.
3.
Men tend to arrive at social gatherings (e.g., parties, bars, etc.) in smaller groups than women.
4.
A classroom painted yellow will promote more learning than a classroom painted brown.
5.
People who have many siblings are more social than only children or those with just one sibling.
6.
Young boys tend to be more willing to hit other people on the playground than young girls.
7.
A woman who has postpartum psychosis may develop hallucinations and suicidal thoughts.
8.
People given a serotonin-enhancing medication will sleep better than those given a placebo drug.
Handout 1.9b Selecting the Best Research Method by Laura Gaudet
Nevid, J.S. and Knapp, J. (2011). Instructor’s Resource Manual for Essentials of Psychology (4th edition), p. 38. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Handout: Selected Studies of Ethical Concern
The answers should be completed in a one page paper.
Students should read one of the following studies and evaluate what harm was done and what ethical violations were committed with regard to the APA’s Ethical Principles.
Then, discuss the following questions:
Do the benefits of this study outweigh the ethical concerns?
How could this study/case have been conducted in a more ethical manner?
THE MONSTER STUDY
In 1939, Wendell Johnson conducted a study of the effects of reinforcement and punishment on stuttering at the University of Iowa. Johnson enlisted his graduate student, Mary Tudor, to experiment on a population of 22 orphaned children in Davenport, Iowa. Johnson divided the children into two groups: half received praise from Tudor for their normal speech patterns and the other half were told by Tudor that they were stutterers (even if they were not) and berated for every speech imperfection. As a result, most of the children in the stuttering group suffered negative psychological effects and stuttered throughout their life.
Johnson’s colleagues, horrified that he would experiment on children in this way to prove a theory, dubbed the experiment The Monster Study. The experiment was kept hidden for fear that Johnson’s reputation would be destroyed after the Nazi experiments on humans were discovered. The University of Iowa finally apologized for The Monster Study in 2001.
Handout 2.21: Selected Studies of Ethical Concern by Melissa Brand
Cacioppo, J. and Freberg L. (2013). Instructor’s Resource Manual for Discovering Psychology: The Science of Mind (1st edition), p. 2-42. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo led the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 to study the development of norms and the effects of roles, labels, and social expectations in a simulated prison environment. The study was funded by a government grant from the United States Office of Naval Research to study antisocial behavior. The research team recruited participants by placing an ad in the Palo Alto Times and the Stanford Daily offering $15/day to male college students to participate in a study on the psychology of imprisonment. Students were told that they would be assigned to play the role of prisoner or guard in a study of prison life, that they would be observed and filmed, and that they would be expected to participate for the full duration of the study. All students signed a consent form and the study was approved by the Stanford IRB.
Twenty-four students were selected; twelve were randomly assigned to play the role of prisoners and twelve the role of guards. The students were screened and found to have no prior record of criminal arrests, medical conditions, or psychological disorders. Palo Alto police conducted surprise arrests at the home of the prisoners. Students were handcuffed, searched, read their rights, and driven in a squad car to the police station to be booked and fingerprinted. The first five were charged with burglary and the last four with armed robbery. They were required to follow a list of rules. Prisoners were allowed to quit. Some did, but most seemed to forget or misunderstand that they could leave “through established procedures” and told each other that there was no way out. The guards were only given a brief orientation telling them to maintain law and order, avoid physical violence, and prevent escapes. The simulation became so real, and the guards became so abusive, that the experiment had to be shut down after only six days rather than the two weeks planned.
Handout 2.21: Selected Studies of Ethical Concern by Melissa Brand
Cacioppo, J. and Freberg L. (2013). Instructor’s Resource Manual for Discovering Psychology: The Science of Mind (1st edition), p. 2-43. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
FACIAL EXPRESSIONS
In 1924, Carney Landis, a psychology graduate at the University of Minnesota, developed an experiment to determine whether different emotions create facial expressions specific to that emotion. The goal of the experiment was to determine if people display common expressions when experiencing a particular emotion.
The majority of participants in the experiment were students. They were taken to a lab and their faces were painted with black lines in order to study the movements of their facial muscles. The subjects were photographed while being exposed to a variety of stimuli intended to create a strong reaction including smelling ammonia, viewing pornography, and—most controversial--decapitating rats. Participants were given instructions to behead a live rat. While all the participants were repelled by the idea, one third did as they were told. Most of the students had no idea how to perform this operation in a humane manner and the animals were forced to experience great suffering. For the one third who refused to perform the decapitation, Landis picked up the knife and cut the animal’s head off himself.
The consequences of the study were actually more important for their evidence that people are willing to do almost anything when asked in a situation such as this one. The study did not prove that humans have a common set of unique facial expressions.
Handout 2.21: Selected Studies of Ethical Concern by Melissa Brand
Cacioppo, J. and Freberg L. (2013). Instructor’s Resource Manual for Discovering Psychology: The Science of Mind (1st edition), p. 2-44. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
LITTLE ALBERT
John Watson, aka the father of behaviorism, was a psychologist who conducted experiments to understand whether fear was innate or a conditioned response. Watson selected a nine-month old infant from a hospital, “Little Albert,” to participate. At first, Little Albert was exposed to a white rabbit, a white rat, a monkey, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspaper, and a variety of other items without any sort of conditioning. Two months later, Watson placed Albert on a mattress in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert, who was allowed to play with the animal. Initially, Albert showed no fear of the rat.
Watson then made a loud sound behind Albert’s back by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer when the baby touched the rat. When he did, Little Albert cried and displayed fear. After the procedure was conducted several times, Albert became very distressed whenever he saw the rat. Albert had learned to associate the white rat with the loud noise, which produced a fearful response in the form of crying.
Eventually, Albert generalized this fear response to anything fluffy and/or white. Little Albert was not desensitized to his fear. He left the hospital before Watson could do so.
Handout 2.21: Selected Studies of Ethical Concern by Melissa Brand
Cacioppo, J. and Freberg L. (2013). Instructor’s Resource Manual for Discovering Psychology: The Science of Mind (1st edition), p. 2-45. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY
Stanley Milgram was a social psychologist at Yale University. He was curious about the Nazis who claimed they were “only following orders” when committing atrocious acts, and wanted to test obedience to authority. He set up an experiment with “teachers” who were the actual participants, and a “learner,” who was a confederate. They drew slips to determine their role, but it was fixed so that the participant would always be the teacher. Participants were informed that the study was about memory and learning.
The teacher and learner were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. The teacher was instructed to teach a list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher read a pair of words, following by four possible answers to the question. The learner pressed a button to respond. If the response was incorrect, the teacher was to administer a shock with voltage that increased in 15 volt increments with every wrong answer. If correct, no shock was applied and the teacher would advance to the next question.
Though the learners weren’t actually shocked, the teachers believed that they were. Pre-recorded screams were played each time the teacher administered a shock. When the shocks got to a higher voltage, the actor/learner would bang on the wall and ask the teacher to stop. Eventually the screaming and banging would stop, followed by silence. At this point, many of the teachers exhibited extreme distress and requested to stop the experiment. When this occurred, the teacher was first told by the experimenter: “Please continue”; then, “The experiment requires that you continue”; followed by, “It is absolutely essential that you continue”; and eventually, “You have no other choice, you must go on.” If the teacher still wanted to stop after the four verbal prods, the experiment was terminated. Otherwise, it would only end after the “teacher” had given the “learner” the maximum 450 fold shock three times. If the teacher asked if the learner was being harmed, the experimenter replied, “Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on.”
In the first set of these experiments, 65% of all participants administered the 450 volt shock, though they expressed extreme discomfort in doing so. Every participant paused and questioned the experiment at some point. Some even said they would refund the money they were paid for participating.
Handout 2.21: Selected Studies of Ethical Concern by Melissa Brand
Cacioppo, J. and Freberg L. (2013). Instructor’s Resource Manual for Discovering Psychology: The Science of Mind (1st edition), p. 2-46. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT
David Reimer was a male identical twin born in Canada in 1965. At six months, there were concerns about how he urinated and he was referred for circumcision at eight months. A urologist used cauterization and burned his penis beyond surgical repair. His parents, concerned about his future happiness and sexual function, brought him to see John Money, a psychologist at Johns Hopkins University. Money was a proponent of the theory of gender neutrality, which states that gender identity develops as a result of social learning and could be changed with behavioral intervention. He persuaded the parents that sexual reassignment surgery would be in David’s best interest.
At 22 months, David’s testes removed and was renamed Brenda. Money continued to provide psychological support, consulting to the family for the next ten years. The situation was considered a particularly valid test case of the theory of Gender Neutrality as David’s identical twin brother could serve as the control, and David had no abnormality of prenatal or infant sexual differentiation. Money instructed the children to engage in “sexual rehearsal play.” He deemed the intervention a success and used it as the basis to support other sexual reassignment in other cases.
The family discontinued seeing Money when he wanted “Brenda” to have a constructed. According to Reimer’s account, he never identified as a girl. He was bullied by peers and never “felt female.” By 13, he was suicidal. In 1980, his parents told him the truth about his gender reassignment. At 14, Reimer decided to assume a male gender identity, calling himself David. He underwent treatment to reverse the reassignment. He went on to marry a woman, but at age 38, committed suicide.
1.
Jogging will increase lung capacity.
2.
Presidents of the United States will report problems with their marriage.
3.
Men tend to arrive at social gatherings (e.g., parties, bars, etc.) in smaller groups than women.
4.
A classroom painted yellow will promote more learning than a classroom painted brown.
5.
People who have many siblings are more social than only children or those with just one sibling.
6.
Young boys tend to be more willing to hit other people on the playground than young girls.
7.
A woman who has postpartum psychosis may develop hallucinations and suicidal thoughts.
8.
People given a serotonin-enhancing medication will sleep better than those given a placebo drug.
Explanation / Answer
The American Psychology Association (APA) has laid out certain 'rules' that need to be followed by every psychologist during a research experiment to protect the research participant from any kind of harm. The guidelines set by the APA include; respect, dignity and privacy of the participant, the psychologist cannot indulge in any activity which may be considered as being malicious, keeping utmost confidentiality of the information provided by the participant and etcetera.
Stanley Milgram conducted his research on the concept of obedience to someone in authority during the time of the Nazi War. When the results of his experimental research confirmed that more than 65% of individuals succumbed to obeying another person in authority, it became a general notion that 'people are likely to do what they were told to do by a person in a position of authority'.
There was no harm administered on anybody involved in the experiment. It was only a false alarm given to the 'teacher' by the 'learner' in the above experiment. However, a very important ethical principle was violated. An experiment cannot take place without the consent of the participant. The participant needs to willingly accept to be the part of an experiment. When the participant in the above experiment, pleaded to stop and that they no longer want to administer shocks on the learner, they were still asked to do so. This is clearly an ethical violation of the guidelines set by the APA. The experimenter should have stopped right there, but the experiment was about observing the effect of obedience in individuals to a higher authority.
However, yes the benefits of this study definitely outweigh the ethical concerns, as from this research we can conclude that individuals are likely to succumb to orders from authority, irrespective of whether the order seems rational or irrational to them.
In order to have carried out this study in a more ethical manner, the experimenter should not have persuaded the participant to the extent where the participant was forced to continue with the experiment even without their willingness to do so.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.