Remember to answer the following questions and response twice to other classmates!
- 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?
65 comments:
The use the deceptive method seems to have worked wonders in the 1960's and 1970's. I think it was an inventive ans interesting way to learn more about social-psychology. To understnd that through this method of study psychologists were able to find out that watching violent movies may lead to more violence in a persons every day life. This fact makes me consider the amount of violence that I have seen in comparison to my violence in my life.
I do believe there is a place for deception in psychological research. As we talked about today in class, there would be a lot less research if some forms of deception was not allowed. Additionally, if deception was not permitted there would be less truthful studies. But isn't it ironic that in order to find truth and facts you have to decieve people?!
I liked the statement that Annie said when she stated that "it is ironic that in order to find truth and facts you have to dicieve people". It is ironic and it makes me think of how my parents would get me to confess the truth (when I was a kid) about something by tricking or decieving me. I still believe that the deception in psychology can go too far. That is why it is good that there are guidelins and ethics when it comes to psychology
Social science has improved a lot from its "soft science" status. Scientists are not only making theories, but are also testing their theories with various different experiments, which was the main turning point for this "soft science." When Latane and Darley drew the conclusion that people can actually help the behaviors of others, it was also a major turning point, because deception was also looked upon as an unfortunate concept. People surely influence others in bad ways, but more often than not, people influence each other in good ways. Though deception is usually looked upon as dishonesty, it is sometimes the only way to gain factual information, so there is definitely a place for deception in psychological research.
Jazmyn's comment made me think about violence in movies, and I've concluded that violent movies do not actually make a person for violent. I've watched dozens, if not hundreds, of violent movies, as well as many other girls and boys my age, and most of them are not violent in nature, Sure, there may be a couple who suffer from violent rages, but how do we know it is not from a bad childhood or the inability to be noticed? More people are influenced by real life, rather than fictional movies.
In response to annie bello's comment and jazmyn's second comment, it is pretty pathetic that our society has gotten to a point where we have to lie to get the truth. However, I do not blame people for lying during a psychology test, because who doesn't want to seem moralistic and good in front of a scientist or doctor? People tend to mask themselves in public as an ideal individual. As Jazmyn said, deception can go too far where it becomes dangerous, but scientists have already established guidelines.
I agree with Jessie. People often don't answer truthfully in tests and surveys because they want to show themselves in their best light. Everyone wants to be esteemed and respected which is why we often exagerate and lie. So often people know what is rightand set rules and limitations, yet they don't actually follow these standards, or "practice what they preach". This is why deception by means of ethical ways should be allowed and excused.
Well to start off, social psychology improved in terms of respectability when it became more of a science, with laboratory experiments that could be controlled through different means and somewhat measured. This is in contrast to the earlier social psychology of just watching everyday behavior. Latane and Darley concluded that people would help others if they are alone. But if in a crowd, they are less likely to act, due to a "diffusion" of a sense of responsibility. I have to say, this surprised me somewhat. From just thinking about it, I would assume that people would be more likely to help someone if in a group because they would want to look good and be seen in a more straitlaced manner. With no one around, their good intentions would not be viewed. But apparently this is not the case... Anyways, there basically has to be a place for deception in psychological research. Without deception, we basically could not find out exactly what someone would do. The example given in class is a perfect way to describe this. You cannot just tell someone that you are going to pretend to shock a person to see how far you will go. You must lie to them to get them to think that it is true, otherwise, your data will be messed up. People wouldn't really care. But I also think that it depends on the "type" of deception. If it is something that is going to do psychological or physical harm to someone, it does not have a place in scientific research. If it will help the science community and not scar anyone for the rest of their lives, then yes it does. But with this comes a certain sense of respoinsibility that must be handled. Not everyone is going to take being lied to very easily.
I have to say that Annie made a great point when she said "but isn't it ironic that in order to find truth and acts you have to deceive people?!" And it sure is. I do think that it is pretty much impossible to get someone to tell you what they are truly thinking because they want to make themselves look better, or simply what they think that normal should sound and look like. That's a major problem in today's society. Everyone is too obsessed with how they look and sound to really take into account what is more important. Anyways, I am getting off topic here. In this light, deception does have a place when you need to get the truth of the matter. People are unreliable in how they act, so tricking the truth out of them may be the only way to get to the crux of someone's real feelings and actions.
Going along with what Angela said about the study that Latane and Darley preformed, I also find it difficult to believe that a person who is alone would willling help someone in danger but a person i a crowd will not be of any assistance. I would think that when someone is in veiw of the public eye and has the opprotuinty to be a hero, they would be helpful. Considereing that it is part of human nature to pride and to seek the lime light and to be noticed i think that there is something wrong when a perosn wont help another espically when they have th chance to be noticed.
I agree with Angela that there is obviously a sense of responsibility that must be handled in dealing with deception and that people will not necessarily take this easily. So, as we discussed in psych, people who are being deceived must be de-briefed after the experimentation explaining everything that really happened and what was gained from the experiment.
If I were to be the one deceived I think I would be mad at first that I didn't realize one was happening. Then, if the benefits to society were so substantial, I would be happy to know that I had aided society in a way I didn't even expect!
1. Social Psychology improved through the use of laboratory experiments. Differing from before, when they only generalized using large groups, they now had the reputation of legitamite studies.
2.That people are more likely to be responsible and run to someone's aid when alone rather than in the presence of other people.
3. I think that you need deception for psychological experiments! Without it the findings wouldn't be accurate because people would act the way they believed would be best. We all do it, we act differently when people are watching us and we are aware of it rather than if we aren't.
i agree with what annie pointed out about deception. I mean how often on a day to day basis do we decieve people in order to find the truth? people are less likely to tell the truth when they know your true intentions, which is sad, but true
i agree with jazmyn in regards to the study done by Latane and Darley. Honestly you would expect someone to be more likely to perform a good deed in front of everyone else. I guess jazmyn's right, it is sad. But in a way it's a good thing. At least we are able to say that people in general would still perform a good deed, even when they aren't watched, which I think is more important. A quote I think about alot is in Ms. Boatright's room and it asks "How do you live your life when no one is watching?" It makes you think how you act at all times.
Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability from its earlier soft science status with the use of research through deception. Research through deception made it easy to test the would be "smart" human subjects by simply decieving them and keeping them in the dark. This greatly improved research tactics and made it very simple to research humans. Latane and Darley concluded that the presence of the others apparently diffuses the naive subjects sense of responsibility. Another way to word this is that when people are with other people they are less likely to help out a stranger as opposed to if they were by themselves. I do believe that there is a place for deceptive psychology because it is highly effective. If human subjects were placed into an experiment they would know and they would be able to figure out how they can portray a good image while being tested. Without research through deception, the world of psychology would be at an epic loss.
In regards to Olivia's comment, i also think that that is a phenomenal question. "How do you live your life, when no one is watchinhg?" This question poses many other questions in a persons mind and is a great way for them to reflect and analyze their choices in the past. If everyone thought of this question from the moment they woke up, this world would be a better place
In regards to Jessi's comment, i also agree that deception is dishonest but completely necessary. If people werent decieved in this world, the world would be a different place. If a dad would get their son a brand new bike from the store for Christmas and then the son would ask, "Daddy, where did you just go?" The dad of course would have to decieve the child and say something like, oh son i just went to the post office. Without deception, the poor little child's christmas would come earlly and would have been ruined. Although some people dont like to admit it, we live in a dishonest and decpetive world. Some aspects of it are good and some aspects are down right cruel. Research thorugh deception is one of the good.
Social psychology lost it's "soft science" reputation because it's experiments revealed innovative ideas and interesting discoveries. It was a "soft science" before because you can't learn or interpret anything when simply observing behavior from afar. The science became widely accepted after it solved a popular mystery (the Kitty Genovese incident); Latane and Darley proved that humans have a "diffused" sense of responsibility when surrounded by others. We assume that someone else will help the person in need. I believe that there's definitely a place for deception in psychology. As long as it doesn't emotionally or physically harm the subject, studies involving deception can reveal many things about human nature.
I agree with Andrew that deception and lies are an inevitable part of our world. Think about white lies, politicians, advertising, propaganda, rumors, etc. However, as most people have already mentioned, the subject would probably walk away feeling proud that they helped in making a discovery. The participant would have helped the entire society learn more about themselves more about how to improve society and human interactions.
Also, the article states that perhaps the use of deception only became popular because of its ingenuity, not because it leads to great scientific findings. Like, the way of going about the experiment was what brought attention to it and intensified the magnitude of the results? Do you guys think that's true?
In response to Jazmyn's comment about how it's shocking that people wouldn't take helpful action when surrounded by others, I think that not everyone's so starved for a hero status. If one in a crowd decided to help the person in need, I don't think it would be because they want to be in the "lime light." Imagine that there's a piece of trash left on a table at the end of lunch... Because there's people all around, you will assume that someone else will throw it away. But when alone, the responsibility lies on only you. (Maybe that wasn't the best example though, because not everyone is as concerned with trash as they are with the well-being of strangers). But my basic point that is that I can see how Latane and Darley's findings make sense.
Social psychology has recently gained more respectability because its experiments have been able to yield interesting results and new discoveries. This can be seen through the experiment Latane and Darley did regarding the Kitty Genovese incident. This particular experiment reveled that when in social situations humans have a diffused sense of responsibility. Deception was a key element in this experiment, without it it would have failed. I think it is impossible to be completely honest when conducting experiments for psychological research. As long as the deception doesn’t emotionally or physically harm a person I believe that deception is okay. Deception is often needed in psychological research.
Going along with what Annie said, I would be kind of angry if I knew that I was decieved during an experiment, but I would also be happy that I helped with something important. But I have to say that it could still have some lasting effects, eventhough you know that it was not real. For example, the experiment that tested how far someone would go in shocking another student. You walk away knowing that it was fake, but you also know that you would have (well, it depends on how far you got) killed a person in that situation. Although you know that you benefitted psychology, you have done something irreprehensible. On the other hand, it could be something as simple and less harmful to the subject's stamina.
In response to Jazmyn, I didn’t find it all that shocking that people would be hesitant to help. Yes, it’s true that people seek the opportunity to be seen as a hero but at the same time people have a natural tendency to avoid attention. Seems like a paradox, doesn’t it? People fear what others think about them, so people will only seek this hero status when they are absolutely sure there is little to no chance that their actions will have negative ramifications. In a situation like the Kitty Genovese incident people’s first reaction will be to pretend like they don’t see what’s going on. They don’t want to take responsibility for the situation and they don’t want to risk society’s disapproval. They also don’t want to risk the chance that they could get injured. You are right when you say humans are proud creatures but humans are also selfish creatures who look out for themselves before concerning themselves with anyone else. I’m not saying this is a good thing, I actually think it’s quite pathetic that humans so self involved, but unfortunately that’s just the way things are and there’s not much chance of changing it.
I agree with Nadya when she mentioned that people assume others will take care of a problem. Think about how many times a day you use the excuse “Someone else will do it,” you probably use it a fair amount of times. Nadya’s trash example was perfect. When in public areas people feel like it’s not their responsibility or place to pick up the piece of trash. When they are alone, however, the responsibility is focused on them and them alone. This makes it more likely that someone would take the time to pick up that piece of trash.
Social Psychology has long-since left its "soft science" shell in the past when psychology began to be studied in the laboratory. Psychological scientists were not only able to observe subjects, but test and observe exactly what they're studying in a controlled environment, which produces data that most people can respect. The use of deception was also a major breakthrough, because it helped validify the data produced; it can virtually eliminate most chances of bias actions from the subject.
I believe that there is always going to be a home for deception in psychological research. As I've mentioned, deception can virtually eliminated most cases of subject bias. If they know exactly what psychologists are looking for, they may try to be model subjects and act how they feel would be appropriate. That would obviously falsify most data. The research conducted by Latané and Darley created a postive image for deception, and rightly so. Their research produced true human behavior, while if the subjects had known what they were looking for, he/she may have very well helped the stranger in distress despite of the strangers around him/her because he/she thought it would look good on paper.
Social Psychology has improved scientific respectability from its earlier "soft science," by psychologists actaully testing their methods. Hard cold experiments instead of settling on theories.
The conclusions that Latane and Darley drew from their experiments were that people can help change other people's reactions by deception. They also concluded that Americans do not have much decency.
I do think that there is a place for deception in psychological research, because in the end, the psychologists know exactly what is going on. As long as no one is hurt in the research, then I think it is alright. But as far as ethics go, deception is lying and honesty is a prized characteristic that should be present in everyone and everything.
Social psychology has not only improved throughout passing years, but has also impacted millions. From being a "fluff science" to becoming "scientifically correct", deception has definatly proved the world its meaningful status by providing lab experiments as well as research and stats. Throughout Latane and Darley's experiments, they concluded that many would not lend a helping hand if putting oneself in danger; not in a rude way, but a naturalistic behavior. I believe that deception should most definatly have a spot when it comes to psychological research; deception is discovering how the mind works in such senarios as does psychological research.
Social psychology gained its respectability in the 1950's when laboratory experiments could not only control the social interactions but also measure their response. I also think that deception plays a key role in psychological research because without deception humans will tend to do what might be admirable instead of their true qualities. Deception used in a scientifical field is used to make sure the data and conclusions come out fair and correct. Deceiving the subjects is used for the protection of a fair experiment. If deception was not part of the psychological research then a lot of researcher’s data would be flawed by humans understanding of the experiment before them. The Latane and Darley experiment helps to show the importance of deception. They were able to conclude that a naive subject is more likely to help a distressed person alone than with a group. Group pressures and responsibilities had an effect on the naive subject in their helping behavior. This conclusion could not have been drawn without the help of deception.
I agree with Bella that "deception is discovering how the mind works in such senarios". Using deception in research allows us to understand how the mind would truly work in that scenario. I also agree with Bella that social psychology has drastically improved and helped change and shape lives across the globe. It is no longer a "soft science" but a science filled with experiments, data, conclusions, and beneficial research.
I do not find anything wrong with decpetion or any other psychological mind tricking experiments. To get the truth, it comes unexpectdly, so while others may say deception is wrong and a form of lieing, its not so bad when benefits your self or others. If you know you are given a test, most likely many will twist up their answers; however, if done naturally, people are got off guard as their "true colors" are revealed. So put the shoes of a psychologist or experimental master on and think logically; now how is deception.
In response to what Juleigh said: I do agree when you said "honesty is a prized characteristic". Honesty is a great quality to have but sometimes not the most practical quality when dealing with a scientifical research project. I also disagree with your conclusion of the Latane and Darley experiment. It did not show Americans lack of decency but rather the shock effect of being put into that certain situation. It is not just Americans, its humans in general that while being in a group they would hope and expect someone else to go out and help the victim. The OVERALL decency of Americans cannot be shot down by that one experiment.
In response to Jazmyn's comment of the amount of willingness to help in a big crowd versus one on one, i disagree. I do not find it difficult to understand that one would be of greater assistance when by their selves rather than in a big crowd. If you are walking down the street and you are the only one around, many would feel obligated to help since they can prevent/change the outcome of the situation. Now if in a big crowd and someone is in need of helpful assistance, some would say well someone else can do it just as much as i can or may also think that by standing out others will think of you a different way that you do not wish to have. When being in a situtation you knew you would be able to handle, everything flies out of your head causing you to freeze up. In example, if ever in the situation that you are on fire, many would forget to stop, drop and roll as we were taught in grade school, but instead run around in a circle thinking that will do something. Not saying everyone is this way, but a few are. You react upon first instinct of yourself as well as others. During an event like this, im sure not many are going to think this is their oppurtunity to become the "hero".
Social psychology improved because instead of just doing studies in laboraties, psychologists began to do real studies on real people and the way the behave. It's a more accurate way because you are dealing with everyday situations, not just labs.
Latane and Darley found that people who were alone were more likely to go help someone out, rather than when people are in a group.
I think deception in psychology is a good thing, because it is much more accurate than if people know what you're doing. They're going to lie and seem perfect and your data isn't going to be real. As most people have said, there are guidelines, which is good, so as long as people follow the guidelines there is really no problem with tricking people for scientific research, as long as it isn't harmful.
I agree with Laura, in that deception has done wonders for social psychology. Also, it is very encouraging to me that we are studying humans. That way, we get better results and are using willing subjects. But, like the article stated, in order to study humans there must be a form of deception, because we become overly aware of certain actions when we know we are being studied.
In response to Nadya's comment
I do agree with what Nadya said about there being room for deception if it doesn't emotionally or physically hurt someone. And I do like how she pointed out that deception can reveal many things about human nature. This is quite interesting, because one person alone acts very differently than how they would when surrounded by others. That also seems to resemble the affects of groupthink.
In response to Holly's comment
I also believe that the conclusion of Latane and Darley's experiment wouldn't have been made without the help of deception. Only seeing how the naive subject reacts when alone wouldn't derive any conclusion. You need another situation to compare it to. And surrounding the niave subject with more people proved that deception is affective of human nature and psyche.
Social Psychology has for a long while left the "soft science" in the past once psychology grew and experiments and studies began and were performed in laboratories. Back then pschologists observed whoever or whatever they were examining but in addition they would test and conduct experiments on the subjects being studied in a controlled environment. No one can contradict the data from these tests. Deception was used to aid in making the data that was recieved more certain, this was a big breakthrough.
I agree with Bella when she says that she doesn't find anything wrong with deception. I think it would be pretty cool to have your mind tricked by weird psychologist experiments.Even though deception fools people, in the end, it helps people. However, deception should be held with a lot of responsibility, it is not something you can just do to anyone. You have to make sure you can get something positive out of it. Decepion has helped in the field of psychology for a very long time and has accomplished many things. Without, many things would not have been discovered.
I agree with Holly and Julie when they said that "Honesty is a prized characteristic". I would like to think that I am honest however there are many times where I have not been so. I am sure it is just like that with a lot of people. I believe that honest is one of the greatest qualities. Looking at holly's statement where she doesn't agree with Darley and Latane's experiment. I believe that they did a fine job and their data returned correctly. everyone must remember that they were the fathers of deception and are very important.
I agree with Jazmyn's comment about the experiment Latane and Darley performed. I would think that people in a group would want to be recognized and noticed for good actions. I know I would, maybe it's just a fear of standing out from the crowd, but people also like to get noticed when they do something good. It's like they're getting something out of it, which is sad. But it's human nature. I just think it is strange that their study found different results.
I agree with Annie's comment statement about the irony of tricking people to find the truth. It's a good point, and it's completely true. People will act differently if they know someone is watching, but if they're deceived then you'll see their true selves.
I think it is necessary to use deception in psychological research. It is (obviously) deceitful and misleading to the subjects, but that doesn't mean it is a bad method to use. The deceptive method can be used to get dependable data where a totally truthful test could not. As long as a researcher follows the rules of ethics and protects the subjects of a psychological test, deception is perfectly acceptable.
In response to Juleigh
I really like the part of the article with the Latane and Darley experiment. Like the critics of the incident, I saw the incident as a loss of decency in humans. But it's wonderful that someone took the time to actually test that. I thought it was awesome to see that the actual results were very different to the opinion that I had originally believed.
I really liked Bella's comment. "..people are caught off guard as their "true colors" are revealed". It is a good explanation for practicing deception is psychological research. It is obvious in Latané and Darley's experiment that it breeds real results, and I think the subject should understand why they were decieved if it is ethical.
in response to juleigh...
In the part about the Kitty Genovese murder it said something like it wasn't a loss of decency but that people in a big city didn't help each other as much. However, the second is no better than the first in my opinion. If they both lead to death, they both are equally disgusting to me.
in response to bella...
I do not find anything wrong with deception either, in fact, it is vital to psychological studies. If not for deception, many pathways would be closed.
However, at the same time, I think the rules of ethics are very slippery. If you can make it seem like your project is going to benefit people in the long run, you can get away with anything. The idea of "greater good" disturbs me (note the quotations.) But as long as we have researchers who are honest and well-educated, and ethics committees who are determined to keep humanity and animals' interests in mind, we will be fine.
Social psychology improved by moving on to conducting studies on real people instead of just laboratory experiments. Psychologists began studying the way people behave and it became a more accurate method because they dealt with everyday life. Latane and Darley found that when someone is alone they are more likely to go and help another person out, instead of when they are in a group. Deception plays an important role in psychology with some experiments. Sometimes, the whole truth cannot be told so that the experiment is true and reactions of participants are natural.
Bella has nothing wrong with deception in certain cases of psychology and I agree with her. Playing tricks on someone's mind to get results that are not screwed up is important. It can be very interesting.
Psychology has became a more "Real" science since the use of labratory experiments in the early 1900's. Lab experiments have made the science more reliable, and have actually recieved great results. Latane and Darley concluded that people are more likely to act on their own beliefs when other's are not influencing you. I think that psychology should include deception in the study. It is crutial to keep the validity of the results!
I agree with Brandon when he says that deception is needed to get accurate results. deception makes the "study subject"'s behavior more natural. This is crutiall!
I guess Holly and Juleigh said that "Honesty is a prized characteristic." I agree with this because it is kind of obvious. Everyone wants to be around honest people because no one likes to be lied to. Pretty much everyone has told some lies but that doesn't necessarily label them as a dishonest person because we are all human, and it's basically impossible to tell the truth 100% of the time.
I agree with Bella's comment about how "peoples true colors are revealed". some people may look at that statement and be angry that the sad truth of human nature was revealed. but in the eyes of a psychologist, isn't "finding people's true colors" what it's all about?!?
i gueess i am trying to say that the people being tested need to suck it up in the name of psychology.
Social psychology has indeed gained more respect than from its soft status because it just doesn't deal with an individuals thought or emotions because it is more concentrated on a group. Its amazing how this group will act as one if a shocking event happens. Bibb Latane and John Darley theorized that when a person is alone in a crisis situation, they feel 100% responsible for taking action. But when there are other people around they feel like they are less responsible and wait for someone to do something. Just like when Kitty Genovese was brutally murdered no one did anything because they were waiting for someone else to take action but no one did.
I think that deception should be used on a scientific study if no one is going to be hurt. Sometimes it is ok to use deception so that the person who your conducting the experiment on won't freak out before hand and screw up the results later.
In response to Juleigh:
I totally agree with you when it comes to deception. When it comes down to it the person who is conducting the research knows exactly what they are doing and wants to better the human race through psychology. As long as the psychologist gives a debriefing after the study, and no one is emotionally or physically harmed, then deception is ok.
In response to Brandon's first comment:
I also really liked that the test was done on real people, and in regards to ryan, deception was involved in the study because the subjects were fooled into thinking an incident was occuring. I also liked that it was a study on something very applicable to everyday life. And it's very encouraging to know that there are so many studies being done that are related to everyday life, that we can use.
In response to Annie Bello:
I also agree with what you said about deception. Yes it may be viewed as dishonesty to deceive some one but to be able to find the true facts you sometimes have to lie you way through it.
1. Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability from its earlier "soft science" status in the sense that by migrating over to the use of labs and beginning lab experiements, experiments can be better conducted and all observations can be carefully controled and recorded.
2. Latane and Darley concluded that a person is actually more likely to help someone when they are alone by themselves rather than if they are in a group of people.
3. I personally believe that there is a place for deception in psychological research because it essentially gives you true data. When a subject knows exactly what a researcher wants, the subject will have the tendency to try to please the researcher with the anticipated results. By deceiving, researchers can potentially receive the true, untapped, unfiltered data.
To get the truth, it comes unexpectdly, so while others may say deception is wrong and a form of lieing, its not so bad when benefits your self or others. If you know you are given a test, most likely many will twist up their answers; however, if done naturally, people are got off guard as their "true colors" are revealed. So put the shoes of a psychologist or experimental master on and think logically; now how is deception.
@Bella: I think your opinion that nothing is wrong with deception is spot on. It's pretty much a fact that the real truth usually comes out unexpectedly. When you deceive someone, you really do their their "true colors" meanwhile others not deceived could derive invalid conclusions to the experiment.
"As long as it doesn't emotionally or physically harm the subject, studies involving deception can reveal many things about human nature."
@Nadya: I'm actually glad I saw Juleigh's response to your comment so I could respond to yours as well, otherwise I would have went right over it.
You put a really good backing behind the terms of in what way it is ok to actually deceive a person. When one is deceived, we as researchers can find out a lot about others and how we as people really are. It's only when researchers go to such heights as harming the person just to receive data is when we have a problem, and this is something that should be wrong for any psychological experiment.
Mrs, Alston I was absent for a couple days and that is why I am a little late in turning in this assignment.
I think that by using the deceptive method researchers have been able to more accurate test results. If some researchers told their subjects everything about the expirement then the results would be tainted by the different reactions of the subjects.
I know a couple people said this and I agree that as long as no one is harmed physically or mentaly as a result to the experiment conducted then I think it is perfectly fine to not fully let you test subjects know everything about the study. I also agree with many people that peoples true colors are revealed when psychologists use the deceptive methos so that the test subjects can just go off of their responses and reactions and not anyone elses reactions.
I agree with Nadya's response to Jazmyn's comment about how it's shocking that people wouldn't take helpful action when surrounded by others, and how not everyone's so starved for a hero status. Besides the Kitty Genovese murder of 1964, many other incidents have occured where people have been beaten, kiddnaped or killed in a crowd and no one steps forward to help the people in need. I think people just don't want to get involve and they think that someone else will do it so no one steps forward.
Post a Comment