Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis | ib psych notes

Abnormal SCLOA CLOA BLOA Essentials

Abnormal Learning Outcomes Abnormal Research Studies

SCLOA Learning Outcomes SCLOA Research Studies

CLOA Learning Outcomes CLOA Research Studies

BLOA Learning Outcomes BLOA Research Studies

Command Terms Course Overview Guide About

Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the sociocultural level of analysis. (22)

Discuss (22) – A considered and balanced review, including a range of arguments, factors or hypothesis. Opinions and conclusions presented clearly supported by appropriate evidence.

Ethical guidelines

Informed consent
Right to withdraw
Deception
Debriefing
Confidentiality/Privacy
Protection of participants (from mental and/or physical harm)

The need to break guidelines

For research purposes, where there are no other feasible methods
Demand characteristics (mostly with Deception)
Cues in an experiment that tells participants what behaviour is expected

John Watson – Little Albert (SLT/Classical conditioning)
[A]	Investigating the classical conditioning method.
[P]	A baby, under his parent’s consent, was asked to participate in the classical conditioning experiment. Experimenter exposed Little Albert to a series of white fluffy objects e.g. rats, white rabbits, santa masks etc. as a baseline test. Little Albert showed neutral responses to these stimuli. Little Albert was then placed into a room with some lab rats, his response was neutral. He started playing with the lab rats and did not show any fear. Experimenters then created a loud noise by hitting a metal bar whenever Little Albert touched the rats, Little Albert showed fear.
[F]	After several pairing of the stimulus, Little Albert showed signs of distress and started crying whenever he saw the lab rats.
[C]	Same fear was displayed when other white fluffy objects were shown to Little Albert. Classical conditioning was successful.
[E]	Ecological validity: Low, lab environment. Culture bias: Babies are too young to have any cultural influence. Immoral to evoke fear under lab conditions, unless participants approves to be purposely horrified otherwise. Caused permanent unnecessary mental harm and distress. Welfare of the human participant must always be the paramount consideration of any experiments.

Philip Zimbardo – Stanford Prison Experiment (Conformity/SIT)
[A]	Prove that situational factors can affect behaviour.
[P]	22 male subjects were selected through personality assessment based on their mental stability, maturity and social ability. Randomly assigned the role of either prisoner or warden. "Prisoners" Signed a consent document that some of their human rights will be suspended for the experiment and that all subjects would receive $15 a day up to 2 weeks. "Arrested" by surprise by real police from their house, taken to a real police station for standard procedures. Driven blindfolded to a prison (set, not a real prison) where they were stripped naked, delouse, and dressed in prisoner uniform. Stayed in the prison for 24 hours a day, followed a schedule of work, rest and meal. "Wardens" Put on warden costumes with the correct props. They worked 8 hours a day, and were given no specific instructions. Asked to keep a reasonable degree of order and were prohibited against any means of physical violence.
[F]	Experiment was terminated in 6 days, instead of the intended 14 days due to abnormal reactions shown by both prisoners and wardens. "Prisoners" Displayed passivity and dependence. Half the prisoners showed signs of depression, crying, fits of rage, acute anxiety. Due to this reason, they were released early. All but two prisoners would forfeit the money if they could be released early. Experimenters proposed that these behaviours were results of the loss of personal identity, dependency and learned helplessness. "Wardens" Displayed huge enjoyment of power at their disposal, leading towards abusive use of power, dehumanizing the prisoners. Some wardens worked extra time with no extra pay and were disappointed that the experiment was over. They punished the prisoners for no apparent justifications (abusive use of power). Not all wardens displayed aggression, but none opposed other’s use of it.
[C]	The situation (prison environment) affected all participant’s behaviour. Arguable that the environment of a prison is what causes prisoners to act violently. Supports SIT Displayed the categorisation and development of identity in both groups.
[E]	Ecological validity: Low, lab environment, overt observation. Prohibition of physical violence limited the generalising ability of the experiment. Experimenters argue that… The functional equivalent of the prison system (setting, costumes etc.) were implemented. Reactions and behaviours of the subjects exceeded the level of “role play”. Calling each other by ID number in private, wardens showed aggression even when they thought they were not being watched. Reliability: Experiment was not repeated until years after, subjects did not act as predicted. Culture bias: only studied subjects from the US. Ethical considerations and issues. Participants signed consent forms, but they had no clear idea of the procedure of the experiment. Induced aggression in subjects. Created discrimination and violence. Gender bias: only male subjects were used.

Stanley Milgram – Study On Obedience (Compliance)
[A]	Investigating the effect of authority on compliance and obedience.
[P]	Subjects were 40 males, age range from 20 to 50, found through newspaper advert. Subjects were led to believe that the experiment was investigating the effect of punishment on learning. They were given the role of the “teacher” through a fixed lottery. They saw the learner (which is an actor) in real life, strapped to a chair connected with an electrode. The experimenter took the subject to another room and told them to apply an electric shock by pressing the button whenever the learner gets a question wrong. The experimenter wore a grey lab coat. The “teacher” was given a test shock of 45 volts. At certain voltages, different vocal feedback was given through a recorded system. After 315 volts, no response was given.
[F]	65% of the subjects continued on to the maximum 450 volts. No one stopped before 300 volts. Subjects were observed to show signs of stress (e.g. sweat, tremble, biting their lips).
[C]	Subjects displayed compliance because of the authority figure (the experimenter in the grey lab coat). Compliance, not conformity. Because it is evident that the subjects did not internalise the idea of giving shock. When subjects were asked to electrocute a puppy, level of obedience increased.
[E]	Ecological validity: Low, lab environment. Culture bias: Unrepresentative sample, all subjects were from the US. Other researchers replicated the study in other countries. Findings can then be generalised. Caused distress in subjects. They were told “you have no choice but to carry on” but in actual fact subjects had the right to leave. Subjects were deceived to thinking that they were actually giving out electric shocks. They were then debriefed, and showed that the learner was unharmed. Gender bias: Only male subjects used initially. In later replicates, female subjects and “victim” were also used. When a female “victim” was used, level of obedience reduced.