- How did social psychology improve in terms of scientific respectability from its earlier "soft science" status?
- What conclusion did Latane and Darley draw from their experiments?
- Do you think that there is a place for deception in psychological research? Why or why not?
Friday, August 29, 2008
AP Psych 3 - Research Through Deception
Remember to answer the following questions and response twice to other classmates!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
1. Social psychology became more respectable from its “soft science” status beginnings when it started to perform its experiments in a laboratory. This meant that the experiments were more controlled, so that the results were more accurate and trust-worthy.
2 Lanatae and Darley concluded that when people are in a group, they are less likely to help someone in need than when they are alone, because all of the responsibility is not placed solely on them.
3. I think there is a place for deception in psychological research. If researchers tell people what they are being tested on, people will act counter to their normal behavior, and the findings of the experiment will be skewed. However, if the deceptive research technique is used, people will act more naturally and the results of the experiment will better reflect true human nature. Social psychology needs deceptive research to acquire accurate results to experiments.
1. Social psychology gained the respect of the scientific community once the experiments were implemented in the lab. Here the variables could be analyzed and controlled and the final results were based on factual data. This was a shift from the earlier meathod of making "wise interpretations" of everyday behavior to a more controlled and precise enviornment.
2. The conclusion Lanatae and Darley reached was that once people observe an attack on someone in a isolated enviornment they are more likely to come to the aid of the victim, rather than if the attack was commited in front of numerous people where the responsability for helping those in need becomes difused by the numbers and diminishes as a strong motivating factor.
3. Its is an undebatable fact that deception is a necessary tool for use in psychological research. If people realized what they are being tested on, then they wouldn't act in a natural stimulus and instead act in a manner that is quite alien to them. This will skew the results of the data and encourage false data. However if the "testees" were not aware of what specific behavior was tested the data would prove to be based on a natural and normal pattern of behavior. Thus in order to fully understand the nature of the human mind and its interactions the need for deception is necessary.
@ alex: Alex I agree with you completley even to the point that I rephrased your sentances and worded them better :D. However do you feel that by tricking the tested subjects it is in a way a lie and thus immoral?
1. The major point that Social psychology became considered a respectable science was when they started to follow the Scientific Method. By using the commonly accepted methods to prove ideas and theories they were able to change their designation from a "soft science" with no commonly accepted proof, to a true science whose results could be experimentally varified.
2. The two scientists, Lanatae and Darley, found that if the requirement to act to a situation is placed in the hands of a group they will be less likely to act due to the fact that the people believe that the problem is a group problem and without a leader they do not have the coheisive nature needed to act. But as a single being they are much more likely to feel responsible and thereby act to a situation.
3. Yes, there is definitally a place for deception in pyschological research. They only way that you can gauge the propper reaction of a subject to a test is if they do not see the true motive behind the questions. If psychology is to get unbiased results they must decive the subjects. However, the proper methods of research need to be followed by giving the subject a full explination of what was tested and why after the study has been completed.
Alex: I agree completely with your answers to these questions. I must admit that I was very surprised that people would be less likely to help when they are collected in a group. I would have thought that the people would feel more secure in a group environment than they would alone so they would be more willing to take a risk in a group. I am surprised that 38 people could stand around as someone was attacked, this would be really interesting to study and learn about.
Walid: I think that tricking the subjects can be imoral if the lie casues them to do things that they would never want to go through. Like the study done with the electricity we learned about in class. This type of deception has the potential to cause great damage to the mind of the subject, so it should be avoided at all costs. However, in some cases it is ok to lie to the subject if it will cause no major damage to the subject and it is for a major benifit to society.
I believe that performing social experiments in a laboratory is not the same as if it was done in public. If we really want to receive the best results, we would perfrom the experiment in the subjects natural environment. As mentioned in the reading, the researchers performed an experiment on whether or not people would aid the distressed person if they were alone or with a group of people. In a laboratory, the independent variable could have some trace to what he or she should do in the situation, knowing that they are being watched by the researchers. If the experiment was done in a public place a.k.a the independent variables natural environment, then we would receive the best results. I'm not saying that laboratory worked should not be done. I'm saying that you will not receive the best results.
I agree with sam on the fact that it is ok to lie to the subject some of the time, if the benefit to society is greater then the harm done to the subject. It really depends on the experiment that the researcher is working on. In my opinion, you should avoid lying to the subject as much as possible, but if it needs to be done, then is could be ok. Lying to a person, even for the benefit of science, is not a good thing.
It makes sense that humans would act differently when they understand what is happening. For example,the subjects on reality tv act differently when they are aware that the camera light is on; people in experiments aren`t any different. Sometimes, in order to get what you want deception is neccessary, but not always. If someone was deceptive in everything then that is just defeating the purpose and now it just turns into dishonesty. Social psychology somewhat left its soft science title behind when the lab experiments became more controlled and scientists began to disguise their real aims. Latane and Darley`s conclusion was people are more likely to help someone if they are by themselves instead of if they are in a group.
Walid:
I would say that deceptive psychology is lying, but not immoral because after the experiment is done, the scientists reveal in detail to the test subjects the real experiment that they were participating in. So, as long as no one is hurt or walks away from the experiment feeling like they are a terrible person, I see no problem with deceptive psychology.
I agree with everyone who said that deception isn`t always neccessary. I was somewhat suprised just like sam when i read that people didn`t help somewhat when they were in a group. However, I have seen it in everyday life due to the people they are around,people decide nt ot help. The sitation with the people in New York was pretty major and i`m suprized no one at all tried to help.
1. Once social psychology started using actual laboratory experiments, they were no longer considered a “soft science”. In its early days, social psychology relied on “wise interpretations of everyday social behavior”. Once it started using actual, observable, reliable information was it considered to have respectability.
2. Scientists Bibb Latane and John Darley discovered the effect of living in a big city or functioning in a large group in relation to helping those in need. Those that were by themselves were more likely to help a person in need while those that were in a large group were not likely to help a person in need.
3. I think that deceptive psychology is extremely important. I know for a fact that if I were told what the study was about, I would act differently. In fact, if I knew there was a study involving me at all I would act differently. I believe that deceptive psychology is the only way a researcher can control the environment and naturally observe a human’s reactions.
To Chynna:
I'm actually not all that suprised that someone wouldn't help someone else in need when they were in a group. People like to conform to those around them. If the other people didn't react, people don't like to look like the outcast or loner when they do try to help them.
Additionally, this information couldn't easily be collected without deception psychology. Sure you could get it with natural observation, but you can't control the environment in natural observation and thus would just be luck if the exact situation occurred where you were observing. With laboratory tests, you couldn't collect this information either because people would obviously react differently than normal if they knew this was a test.
1. Social psychology became more respectable when it started to perform experiments in laboratories. This allowed more complex concepts to be studied, and with greater control.
2. Lanatae and Darley concluded that when people are in a group they are more likely to conform to the group and not act the same as they might of on their own.
3. Before reading this article most likely nobody would dispute deception on some level is needed in psychology. However, after reading this article, where a great example was stated in favor of deception, yet nothing was said against it, except that there are people against the use of deception; it is undeniable that deception is needed to control confounding variables.
Walid:
Other people already answered this, but I just need something to respond to... Lying in studies like this is not immoral unless the lies permantely hurt or change the subject, plus the scientist usually debreif the subjects
afterward so it it ok.
Erik:
I know what you mean, if I were in a study, even if I was not told what it was for, I would probably act different as I would be more aware of every little thing I would do.
Sam:
I agree with you that deceptive psychology is alright as long as after the experiment is finished the experiment is revealed in full to the subjects being tested. This is one of the rules of ethics that the APA came up with for experiments in psychology. This rule is important so that subjects walk away fully understanding what it is that they have participated in. Also, I agree that it is interesting that in a group of 38 people, no one tried to help someone under attack. This is why deceptive psychology is important, so that we can study this type of human behavior.
1.Social psychology has improved in terms of scientific respectability because the results can actually be measured. "Wise Interpretations" only get you so far. In fact I think most things can't predicted an have accurate results because people are different and so are their circumstances and backgrounds.
2.Latane and Darley found that with the presence of others, (especially strangers), their role of responsibility is dulled.
3.I think that there is almost always a place for deception in psychology research. In their deception, they act just like they would have, but the researchers have their consent to run these tests. In that reagard, the experiment can be balanced because elements can remain equal, and the only variable is the human's own decision.
1. Social Psychology was more respectable after the shift to the use of laboratory experiments. Before social psychologists made interpretations of the everday social behavior which was an earlier "soft science" statues, meaning many of their experiments could not be controlled. When psychologiests decided to change how they interpret the behavior of others was when they gained the scentific respect because then their variables could be more controlled and their final results more precise.
2.When Latane and Darley conducted a series of experiments in which they fooled their subjects into thinking that a stanger was in distress they found that if the subject was alone he or she would immediately assist the stranger but when the subject was with others they were more likely to help the distress stranger.
3.I do believe that there is a place of deception in the psychological research. Sometimes in the field of psychology their subjects need to be lied to in order to obtain the information and results they need where as if the subject has the knowledge of knowing what kind of experiments if being done on the behavior of that subject might not be their natural behavior and the results might be distorted.
Deception is used on an everyday basis an is essential to our society. That might sound odd, but think about how that influences the decisions you make and how you yourself use it. People use it so you buy their product, believe their side of a story, feel guilty, convince you that the economy is really bad, and even scientific experiments. The truth is, people don't like things so blunt. It makes them behave differently too. Deception brings out the true nature of humans.
I dont believe that lying in an experiment is unethical sometimes it must be that way in order for you to obtain the right and correct information. What would be immoral is if the subject in the experiment was not told after what was really going on and if the subject was emoitonally and mentally distraught afterwords. If this kind of damage can be avoided in a experiment when deception is being used and if it is for the good of science i do not see the wrong.
1. Social psychology became more respectable when scientists started doing controlled experiments. Data gathered is more accurate in a setting where the researcher can control and measure what is going on.
2. Latane and Darley concluded that an individual is more likely to help someone out when they are alone than when they are in a group.
3. Of course there is a place for deception in psychological research. Without deception people would definitely act different in a situation than when they would if they were not being decieved. People go through day to day life without knowing what will truly happen so, in order to get the most accurate results, people shouldn't know what's going to happen in the experiment either.
Nick made a good point. Even if you were told that you were participating in a study, everything would be different, not just what the study is about. Deception is like natural observation but in a laboratory. This is very crucial to find the facts about human behavior. As Brian said, "Deception brings out the true nature of humans."
Most of us agree that deception is indeed important in order to recieve the best results. Everyone acts differently in their natural settings than when they are being watched. Why is it that someone has to be watching in order for people to do what they feel is right?
In response to wallied's question, yes it is immoral to lie. We have been taught that since we have been able to talk. However, if the good outweighs the bad, it is definitely worth it. A person feeling bad about themselves is a resonable exchange for knowledge gained. I know it sounds harsh, but the people, like those in the electricity experiment we learned about, might even feel bad enough about themselves that they change and start doing the right thing. Knowledge gained in experiments like those might actually positively change more than those involved in the experiments.
1. Social psychology is the study of how people and groups interact. Prior to the 1950's these interactions among people and groups weren't manipulated in the laboratory thus authentic emotions weren't always witnessed. But in the 1950's the scientific method was implemented and the branch of psychology previously coined the "soft science" became more respectable.
2. Lantane and Darley concluded that there wasn't a loss human decency in America but the inhibiting effect on helping behavior of the social interactions typical of big-city life. Basicly in a group every person assumes that the other guy will help a person in need. Meanwhile when a person is alone and sees a person in need they feel more obligated to help because no one else will.
3. I think that there is definetly a place for deception in psychological research under a few conditions. No one involved in the experiment is allowed to suffer physical or psychological harm, if a person was not blinded they would still choose to partake in the experiment, and the rewards of the experiment must outweigh the risks.
Matt-
Why is it that someone has to be watching in order for people to do what they feel is right?
Peole generally don't want other people to have a bad perception of them. So when a person is on t.v. or in a big crowd of people they try to be politically correct, say the "right" things. But if nobody is watching, then people can simply be themselves and that's what psychologist want to achieve, authentic reactions.
1. social psychology moved from a soft science in the 50's when they stopped making inferences and started studying in a lab
2.Latane and Darley found that if somenone is alone they are more likely to help someone in distress than they are in public because the public lowers there sense of responsibility
3. deception is necessary in psychological research but only at certain times. the only time deception should be used is when it can protect the subject or the experiment calls for it
i agree with sam, its hard to believe that a group of people would ignore someone in distress and would more than likely help if they are all alone, i would also like to see the results from a study like this
i agree with andrew when he says that we need to study these happenings in a natrual environment. the happenings arent as accurate if the subject knows that they are being studied by researchers
I agree with Delfinia that deception is a crucial part of psychological testing, as it is interwoven in the very fabric of society (more in "why we lie" by David Livingstone Smith). To add to what she said, its not simply deception in and of itself that psychological testing needs, for there is certainly a time and place for implementation of deception, though this is hardly a place to discuss what "Truth" really is.
1. Social Psychology changed from its "soft science" by doing more legitimate experiments that gave proof that the experiments done were accurate and correct.
2. Latane and Darley drew the conclusion that if someone was alone, they would more likely help someone in distress; if they were in a group, they would be less likely to help out.
3. Yes, because it would be extremely difficult to keep track of people and how they react to things just on a normal and not set-up basis. Doing this enables organization and accuracy to how people react.
I disagree with Walid in that deception should not be used. Using deception has helped enable the psychology world to develop into what is not which is a far more advanced and legitimate science that it is today. Deception is vital in studying situations that require an experiment and do not just generally happen in everyday life.
I agree with Matt that people could possible act different in certain cases and it requires that people need to be deceived in order to achieve the accurate data.
1. When psychology was a "soft science" it was merely the educated interpretation of a person by another. However, science and lab experiments later became a core factor of psychology. Because the experiments could be controlled and measured, the results were more credible than the results of its predecessor.
2. Latane and Darley found that people act differently when they are alone and when they are around others. Alone, they feel the responsibility to help someone in trouble. With others, the responsibility is "diffused" to the group and the individual is less likely to help.
3. Psychology is the study of the mind. However, if the psyche can often be elusive. Deception in psychology is like taking a candid photograph of a person. It shows the more realistic nature of that person. Without deception, people can become posers, or show a fake personality, reflecting how they want to be seen rather than who they really are. As such, I believe that sometimes it is necessary for deception if it helps give a better understanding of the human psyche.
@ Andrew: "Lying to a person, even for the benefit of science, is not a good thing."
I agree that the ends do not always justify the means. No one can say exactly what the "greater" cause is. For some, it may be science. For others, it may be truth.
@ Brian: "Deception is used on an everyday basis an is essential to our society.[...] Deception brings out the true nature of humans."
Deception is definitely a characteristic of human nature. Why? It's simple, because it gives results. Groups everywhere (like journalists or news stations) skew facts to prove their point and people eat it up. Although it's not the whole truth, they deceive by reporting only half-truths or half the story. Ironically, deception in psychology is used in order to find a more wholesome truth to the human mind.
) Social psychology changed from the 1950's by using more deception now a days to cover the real experiment. Also now psychologist can control situations instead of just researching in labs.
2) Latane and Darley concluded that if a victim was alone a stranger would be more likely to come and help, but if others were around known to the victim someone would be less likely to help.
3)Yes if there is something psychologist want to study and research they might have to mislead the participants in order to receive a non bias reaction and conclusion.
I completely agree with eric, knowing information about your surroundings and or what is going on, you cant help but act different or as you "should"
I somewhat agree with tyler, except that some of the most influential cases that provided the most insight to the human mind done in the past did cause harm to the patient. I think in some cases this is needed in order to study extreme topics and produce real results. I do not agree with it necessarily but i think under some circumstances it had to be done.
@ Matt, each and every person has their own personality and their own way of doing things. If someone know that they aren't being watched, then they will do whatever they feel like doing, but if they know they are being watched, then might do what is the right thing to do, even if it isn't the way they would do it. That is why natural observation is a very helpful method in observing the subjects most natural behavior. They don't that they are being watched, so your receiving the best results.
Post a Comment