- 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 6 - Research Through Deception
Remember to answer the following questions and response twice to other classmates!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
74 comments:
1. Social psychology improved from its earlier "soft science" status by using deception to its patients. In the 1950's scientists started conducting laboratory experiments in which factors could be controlled. Humans could understand what was going on so they had to deceive their patients.
2. Latane and Darley concluded that if a stranger was in trouble, a subject that was alone would save the stranger;while if people that were unknown to the subject were present they were less likely to act.
3. I think there is a place for deception in psychological research, because if you don't deceive someone you might not get the results you need. For example, you wouldn't get the reaction from the test subject that you normally want. Their reaction will be altered. I do not think it is right to deceive people like Latane and Darley did in their experiment. This was wrong because to pretend to put someone in harms way is very wrong, regardless of its experimental background. This experiment could leave the patient very traumatized afterward. If you want to conduct an experiment like theirs the test subjects must be told about the experiment afterward.
Previous comment written by: Tyler Petcher
1)Social psychology improved by using deception to its participants. In the 1950's scientist shifted to the use of lab experiments in which interactions could be controlled and measued.
2) If a stranger was in trouble the subject, if alone, was likely to help the subject. But if the stranger were in trouble the subject was less likely to act if others were around.
3) I think there is a place for deception in psychology because if people always know what they are getting themselves into, they may back out, or not give the right emotion like someone who does not know anything. Although deception is not always a good think, i think it depends on the experiment whether or not to give the whole truth.
1) Social psychology improved though laboratory experiments. In this environment the experiments could be controlled and produce better results. It was a great improvement from using interpretations of everyday behavior.
2) Latane and Darley concluded that it a person was alone, he/she would be more likely to run to someone's aid.If the person were surrounded by strangers, he/she would be more likely to not run to someone's aid.
3) I think there is a place for deception in psychological research because the results are very accurate. People act differently around others, where as if they were alone.
I agree with tyler that there are certain situations were deception is wrong. After knowing about the experiment, it can make a person feel horrible about themselves for not helping someone in trouble. That person has to live with the fact that they wouldn't help someone in need just because others were present. However, in other situations, deception can increase our knowledge of human behavior,without leaving the patients traumatized.
1. The improvements of social psychology started by applying the idea of deception towards patients. Laboratory experiments replaced old "soft science" experiments. This change was a benefit because in labs you can control certain factors for your benefit.
2. Latane and Darley concluded that if a naive subject was alone they would help a distressed stranger. However, if others were present in the situation, the subject would be less likely to act.
3. I think there is a place for deception in research because it is the true facts. If a subject respondes to a certain skewed situation they have reacted in that instance. Even though they might say they could never do that, they did because they were there, in the moment.
I agree with marissa that deception might not always be politically correct, however it helps proves certain behavioral experiments.
I also agree with Marissa when she is talking about deception and people's reactions. People unconsciously act differently when others are around. We need deception in psychology in order to obtain correct results and find out more information about human behavior.
I think deception research can be compared to an average of your behavior results. Not everyone will respond in the same manner, which is why the article explained that only one third acted this way and the others acted in a different manner. But this makes it hard to understand why deception can help obtain correct results when everyone might respond differently?
1) Social Psychology improved from its earlier "soft science" standing by changing to the use od lab expierements where all the interactions could be controlled and recorded.
2) Latane and Darely concluded that a person is more likely to help another in need if there is nobody around, but if they are surrounded by a group of people (especially if they dont know the people) then they are much less likely to help whoever is in need because they dont really feel as responsible.
3) I deffinatley think there is a place for decepeion in psychological reserarch. Just because if you tell someone what your looking for they could be on thier best behavior and not do what thier initial reaction would be. For example if you want to see how greedy a person is by putting out a bowl of candy and saying they can have as many as they want an unknowing subject may take several pieces while a knowing subject may only take one, if any.
I agree with tyler and amy when they say that there are down sides to using deception in our reserarch, but at they same time it is really they only way we would know what people would normally do. So i think that its worth it (only if nobody gets hurt though).
About what Caitlin said, i think that even though people react differently deception is still a good way to do reserach because even though those people are reacting in different ways, if they knew what you where really trying to observe they would do things much differently so that that maybe they eould lookk better.
1) Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability from its earlier "soft science" status by shifting to the use of laboratory experiments in which interactions could be controlled and measured. Of course, it is way different testing humans rather than rats because humans can understand and respond to what is going on.
2) Latane and Darley, social psychologists, conducted a series of experiments that tested how people would react to other people pretending to be in distress. Their experiments concluded that a person is more likely to help someone when that person is alone, rather than being in a group of people.
3) I am not sure if I would ever say that it is right to lie to someone, but for research purposes it may be better to sometimes. I mean psychologists sometimes need an honest answer from their participants, and some people will not give them one unless they are lied to.
I agree with Morgan because she is saying that sometimes you have to lie to get a truthful answer. This is a lot like what I said. Especially with research, deception is often necessary.
I also agree with Caitlin because she is saying that deception does not always work on everyone, so why are their answers accurate? I would also have to say that goes both ways because the other people being tested are not accurate either. I think the better question is, “Who is right and who is wrong?”
1) Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability from its earlier "soft science" status because psychologists began to change their approach by taking the matters into the laboratory. In doing so, they enabled access to a whole new level of experimentation- research through deception.
2) Latane and Darley concluded from their experiments that a subject is less likely to help a stranger in distress if other people are present than if that subject were alone. As it states in the article this behavior is "typical of big-city life."
3) There is a place for deception in psychological research. The unawareness of an experiment's subjects is what contributes to the accuracy of the conclusion.
To an extent, political correctness shouldn't exist in science. If reaching a conclusion by means of deception is an efficient method, and the subject isn't being excessively, physically harmed, then the experiment, by all means, should be carried out.
1. Social psychology has improved its "soft science" status by demonstrating the use of controlled laboratory experiments, which they used to observe and evaluate social interaction.
2. Latane and Darley determined from their experiments that a person in dire need of help, will more likely be helped if their was only one person there. With other people present, it diminishes each individuals feeling of responsibility.
3. To a certain extent there is a need for deception in psychological research. A majority of psychology's founding ideology has been produced as a result of it. This shows that there is a opening for it. However, some of the studies that used this method, were unethical because they knowingly caused physical or psychological harm to the subjects. But I do believe that researchers can utilize this ethically in order to productively and carefully observe honest results.
1.) Social psychology improved in the fact that instead of making interpretations of everyday behavior, it started using contolled experiments to gain the ability to measure the results.
2.) Lantane and Darley concluded that there was no loss of human decency in America, but that the amount of people around effects the helping behavior of people within the big city.
3.) I think that deception should be used in some psychological science, but only to an extent. It should never be used to hurt anyone, and it should never be used wrongly. However, if you didn't use deception, the truth would never be revealed because people would try and alter the results of the experiment. I can definitely see both sides of the argument against deception.
I definately have to agree with Mark P. about the use of deception. As long as the subject isn't severly harmed or humiliated, then you should definately proceed. Especially if it is needed for accurate results.
I totally agree with Samantha. She basically brought up the same point that I did. It can sometimes be unethical to deceive people simply to do experiments. If researchers only do experiments ethically, than I have absolutley no problems with it.
I wanted to point out that the article says, " Faced with unanimity among his or her peers, the naive subject would squirm, sweat, feel upset- and about one third of the time, go along with the majority vote."
One third was the amount of times the subject's results were affected by the groups answer. It was not the aggregate amount of people in the study.
Still I do agree with the central idea. How else can psychologists expect to conduct experiments that would evoke natural reactions, without deception? It is pretty much impossible.
I somewhat disagree with what a few people said about deception. Those people who said it was completely okay failed to mention that sometimes it's wrong and unethical. I think that's an important thing for people recognize. I think it's important that people understand that someone is blatantly being lied to, which we have been taught all out lives is wrong. Why is it right now?
Jazmyn: these lies we that we have been told to resist from since our childhood are typically inconsequential and only pose a threat to the individual. The so called "lies" that exist in a deceptive psychological experiment are often followed by positive conclusions that are relevant to the wellness of mankind. Therefore, you cannot classify deceptive methodology with the trivial lies of everyday life.
1. Social psychology has improved from it's status of being a "soft science" through creating experiments using deception to see how humans will react to a certain situations and how their reactions differ by using other social interactions, that usually lead them to the wrong answer.
2. The conclusion that Latane and Darley reached in their experiment was that if the naive subject was more likely to help a stranger in distress than if they were with other people were around, because the extra people "diffused" the naive subjects responsibility in the situation.
3. I think that deceptions plays a very important role in psychology because it is the only way to create sistuations with humans as the subjects and have a honest answer from them. If you ask any person if the go along with something because of peer pressure they will always say "no". That's why you need deception so you can see how they react and if it would be different than their conscience if they knew what was going on the entire time.
Jazmyn: I totally agree with you that deception should only be used to a certain extent. Once the pychologist has long-term physically or mentally hurt the subject, the reason for using deception is just another name to justify hurting someone to get an answer to a silly experiment. It is not worth a life or someones psychologic stability to get an answer to an experimants on how they would react in a situation
1.) Social psychology began to improve from its "soft science" status as a result of the use of laboratory experminets, in which social interactions could be controlled and measured.
2.) Latane and Darley conducted a series of experiments in which subjects were fooled into thinking that a stranger was in distress, and found that if the naive subject was alone, he or she would rush to the aid of the stranger, but that if others, especially persons unknown to the subject, were also present, he or she much less likely to act.
3.) I think there should always be a place for deception in psychological research, because deception allow more accurate results and shows one's true character. As for the experiment Latane and Darley did, if a subject knew that they were being tested to see if they would help someone in need, then most likely they would do the "right" thing, even though they might not do the same in reality.
1) Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability from earlier 'soft science' status by good research methods and using the scientific method. They no longer just observed people and wrote down their conclusions.
2) Lante' and Darley concluded that a individual in a crowd is less likely to help someone in need, rather than a person that is by themselves. Its like when someone is stranded on the side of the road, people are less likely to help when its on a busy highway. But if someone is stranded on a country road, people are more inclined to help because if they don't stop to help, no one will.
3)I believe there is a place for deception in research because the subjects reactions are less likely to be tainted. If your studying how someone reacts to a certain thing, and they know what your looking for, they are more likely to be thinking about it while they react. It wouldn't represent what actually goes on in life.
I find it hard to believe that people were less likely to help someone out in a group situation. Maybe it is because people think that someone else will help the person in need before them??? I did see something on t.v. though where a man got hit by a car walking across the street and people just pointed at him and it took almost five minutes before some one helped him out. Human behavior is very confusing.
I have to agree with Samantha, deception has good and bad benefits to it, but what other ways can you use to gain accurate results? Most likely people are misrepresent their true reaction to a situation when they know what's going on. I guess sometimes you have no choice but to use deception to gain the information you need for research.
I agree with Samantha as long as no one is deceived to the point where they could have serious psychological effects after the experiment. Otherwise deception is the only way one can get good scientific results.
[Written by Tyler Petcher]
Caitlin: I agree with you and Natalia also that although deception can be useful it's not always accurate. I don't think that socisl psychologist should totally rely on the answer they get from the naive subject because you don't know exactly what they are thinking when they make their choices. Like it says in the article only a third of the time did the subject follow the confederates. Those who are easily persuaded are more likely to go along with everyone else.
1. Social psychology imporved when they began decieving patients to attain the conclusion they desired. It became respectable by science in the 1950's.
2. Latane and Darley concluded the presence of a person will affect the actions of another. If no one was around they would tend to the stranger, but if someone was nearby they would pass the stranger.
3. I think that deception is necessary in psychology because it can prove things that you normally would be incapable of proving if you told the patient your real objective. Deception has enabled science to identify things about human nature that they couldn't be able to if the patient knew what the experiment would conclude.
1. social psychology moved from its status as a "soft science" by stopping their previous goal of making inferences on everday behavior to using deception to study real situatuions
2.Latane and Darley concluded that a naive subject would rush to the aid of a distressed stranger if alone but if no one was around, but were less likely to with others present because their sense of responsibility seemed to lessen in public.
3.there is a place in psychological research because without it the results of the social research would be biased because humans must be decieved or they would figure out what was happening.
When deception is used at its extreme, then it is unethical. At that certain point where someone is getting harm mentally or physically, deception is being used in a wrong and injurious way. I think if someone was doing an experiment by making the subject think that their loved ones were getting hurt, and they couldn't do anything about it, but just sit there in agonizing pain, that is unethical. But if the experiment was just to see how someone respond to a situation like helping a stranger in need, then that is a right way to use deception.
i agree with marissa when she says that deception should depend on what truth is being hidden and what is being studied in the experiment and also when she mentions the emotion shes completely right, some people would not express the emotion they normally would if they knew what was going on
i agree with mark pettibone because he stated, "the unawareness of an experiment's subjects is what contributes to the accuracy of the conclusion." I agree entirely with that because in the Latane and Darley experiment, if you told the subjects were seeing if you will still care for this stranger if there are people around. That would skew the outcome of the experiment.
i also agree with amy and tyler when they say that deception can be wrong. if someone takes the fact that they didnt help the person in distress to hard it could bother that person for a very long time
I agree with craig as well. Deception can be a great tool to prevent the effect that the experiment could have on the subject. Thats where science needs to be controlled, by how much they could change someones life from an experiment. Its first objective should be to make sure the subject wont be dramatically affected and second the experiment.
I am torn between both Jazmyn's and Mark P's. thoughts on this topic. I agree with Mark in the sense that these can not be classified with lies because this is experimental purposes only and is for the sole purpose to find answers. The patients eventually are filled in to what has happened. However no matter if they can be classified as everyday lies or not they are still lies, and when we are taught are wholes lives to not lie. It is still against our self Morales and values, as well as those of the patients. There is no such thing as a professional lie.
I am torn between both Jazmyn's and Mark P's. thoughts on this topic. I agree with Mark in the sense that these can not be classified with lies because this is experimental purposes only and is for the sole purpose to find answers. The patients eventually are filled in to what has happened. However no matter if they can be classified as everyday lies or not they are still lies, and when we are taught are wholes lives to not lie. It is still against our self Morales and values, as well as those of the patients. There is no such thing as a professional lie.
1. Social psychology improved from the earlier "soft science" by using deception in dealing with its patients. Scientists began doing lab experiments in the 1950s so they could control and measure interactions.
2. Latane and Darled proved that if a stranger was in trouble, the subject was more likely to help the stranger if he was alone. However, if the stranger was in trouble and there were people around, the subject was less likely to help.
3. I believe that deception is a very important part of psychological research. Without deception, it is very hard to get natural reactions from the test subject. As long as they are debriefed afterwards, I think it is completely okay to deceive someone. Of course, there are some instances in which it would not be okay to deceive someone. Most of the time, however, I believe it is okay as long as there is a legitimate scientific reason.
Dylan Joiner makes very good point. If the subject knew before hand that he/she was being lied to, the reaction to whatever was being tested would not be the same. Do to that the end result would not be exactly very accurate. This con of deception.
To Tyler Petcher's first comment, I disagree with your opinion that pretending to put someone in harm's way is wrong. As long as they aren't ACTUALLY in harm's way, then why does it matter? I don't see how it could traumatize someone that badly. I also believe that they probably debriefed the test subjects afterward.
I agree with Morgan when she says that people would act differently to make themselves look better if they knew what they were really being observed about. That is why deception is basically the only way to get actual results. I believe it is one of the most important parts of psychological research.
Oh, and I just realized that I am posting on the wrong one! Sorry Mrs. Alston! (The last few comments were from Chelsea Burklow, Period 5)
1. Deception has greatly improved social psychology. In 1950 scientist and psychologists started using controlled variables that could be measured and carefully watched.
2. latane and Darely found tha if a certain person was all alone and if something had occured and someone needed help, that person would run to the rescue. On the other hand if that person was all by them selves they would keep more to themselves and see what someone else does.
3. I do think that there is room for deception in psychology because sometimes people do not always act how they would if they knew they were being monitered. However it should never be used to hurt anyone.
1. Social Psychology improved through the use of deception on patients. In the 1950's lab experiments had began conducting experiments in which the the different variables could be controlled.
2. Latane and Darley had come to the conclusion that people react differently in big cities if they come upon malicious behavior or when witnessing a crime. They found that when a person witnesses a crime when no other people are around they will then act, however if they are not alone such as in a crowd or with others they will then not take any action.
3. I feel that there is a place in deception psychology research due to the fact that it is almost looked upon as a standard issue in human experimentation.Because as humans we have the ability to reason and come to conclusion far better than any other species on earth, it is necessary that we use deception in our experiments in order to get accurate results. There may be ways or getting better results through learning better methods of deception as we come up with better ideas.
I agree with David and Craig on how deception is a tool and necessary in getting honest answers and results when experimenting. People want to be seen as what they perceive as "normal" and will go about lying in order to appear as such.
Commenting on Coasterdue91's comment about people not reacting to others when in need, i think that it depends on the location and the people watching. I feel that all people are different, for we are all individuals that acti differently in different circumstances. And People do help one another when the time calls for it, such as during the attacks on the world trade centers. During the attack, people of all walks of life stood up and helped each other. however if it comes to a crime such as some guy stealing an old woman's purse, it is different because people don't see other people reacting to the situation. I feel that people will only help if they see others helping as well or if they are the only ones that can help.
1. Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability in the face that deception was introduced and experiments could be controlled and measured.
2. Latane and Darley concluded from their research that if a unknown person was being attacked, and the subject was alone, he/she would intervene. If the unknown person was being attacked and the subject was with other people, he/she would not help.
3. I think there is a place in psychology for deception, because the reactions are pure and based on how people with actually react with others around. For example, the subject would know he/she is being observed, so he/she would most likely act in a way the is favoriable towards society.
1) Social psychology improved from its earlier "soft Science" though laboratory experiments. Laboratory experiments produce better results since it in a controlled environment.
2) Latane and Darley stated that if a person was alone then they would run to save someone who was in trouble. But if there were other people there then they were less likely to help someone.
3) I think there is a place for deception in psychological research, people act different when they are alone than when there with others.
I think Craig makes valid points in that deception makes the subject tainted. Subejects are more likely to act in ways that seem normal and that is a different experiment in how the subject will react while being viewed.
I have to agree with Natalia on how she said that mean psychologists sometimes need a honest answer from their participants, and some people will not give them one unless they are lied to. That is the only way to get the best results.
Petcher brings up how putting someone in harms way can tramatize them. I agree fully in the sense that although they are not really at risk, the experience could tramatize them in the future which is against the ethics of psychology.
1. Social psychology improved from its earlier "soft science" status by using deception to get better results. Using lab experiments helps them to better contol interactions.
2. Latane and Darley came to a conclusion that people are more likely to help a person in distress when they are alone, rather than when there are people around.
3. I think there is a place in psychological research for deception because if the subject knows what is being studied, then they are more likely to try and give the researcher what they are looking for, and not being totally honest. There are some cases that should not be able to use deception, but most should be able to.
Jasper makes a valid point when saying that it is necessary that we use deception in our experiments in order to get accurate results.
I agree with Chelsea because it is not natural when you the subject knows what they should be doing. They should be told afterward, but if you tell them before the results may differ.
I agree with Amy about how people act differently around people then they do when they are alone.
To continue on with others have been saying. I believe people do not want to get out of their comfort zone. If you go help someone that's injured, you'll probably attract attention. Since most people do not go out of their way for others, taking part in such a action would be abnormal - also out of their comfort zone.
To add my input to Jasper's last comment. I believe in the situation of 911, people were in their panic mode. The situation directly effected them, and so they took action.
I don't think it can really be compared though to a situation in which it has no effect to the person. (Or something to the extent of 911).
1. The thing with soft science is that it deals with variables that can't be controlled. It has gotten better in the respect that scientist have developed methods in which they can control factors in laboratory experiments.
2. The experiments done by Latane and Darley proved that if a person was getting hurt and calling out for help, the strangers around are less inclined to give assistance. They figured out that the more people are around the less likely they are to respond to the person in distress. This is called bystander apathy. Wait to see what the others would do.
3. I think that an experiment that deals with keeping the subject unaware of all the factors of the research is ok. It's ok when the results don't end with someone being emotionally or physically hurt though. If you clued the subject in on the factor and asked them to hypothetically think of how they would act in a situation takes away from true results, and authentic emotion and response could be false. But after the experiment is finished I think they should be told of the unknown factors.
I agree with Marissa because there are some cases when deception is for the better good. In conducting an experiment that requires some factors to be left out from the subjects, I feel that it's legit to do that because it will get real results and real emotions. But there is a thin line between deceiving for a good cause and deceiving to suit one's own selfish purpose.
1. Social psychology improved in terms of scientific respectability from its earlier "soft science" status when it began to use laboratory experiments in which human behavior was not only studied but controlled.
2. Latane and Darley concluded that Americans were not becoming evil people but simply that living in a big city changed helping behavior.
3. I believe deception is extremely important in psychological research. Subjects who know what they are being tested for will skew the results, whether consciously or unconsciously. Getting the truth out of them requires that they not know what the research is about. Such work can hardly be called deceptive when researchers simply fail to tell subjects what the research is about.
I also agree with Samantha because if the patient is harmed in any way shape or form then the experiment should be revised and fixed. Harming people psychologically or physically by being lied to isn't fair at all. I agree with her because I believe scientists can control the experiment enough to allow the subject to be safe.
I agree with Mark that political correctness doesn't have a place in science. Physical harm, no. Psychological harm? If a person is willing to electrocute other human beings, the person is already psychologically harmed! Making the person aware of this isn't doing any further damage. Putting someone through a genuinely traumatizing experience that he or she is not in control of, however, such as showing someone disturbing images, should not be allowed.
1.The difference between modern social psychology and earlier soft science is that lying is used nowadays under the term of deception. Deception allows for psychologists to control certain aspects of experiments. If they did not deceive the subjects would catch on and change their actions and behaviors.
2.Latane and Darley plainly said th at people are affected by others in situations of duress. Basically they said if someone you didn't know was drowning and you were alone you would be more likely to help but if there were other people around you would be less likely to help them.
3.I think deception is needed in psychology because if the experimenters dont decieve the subjects the subjects will deceive the experimenters by changing their behaviors. Due to psychological damage i dont think that it was ethical to do this but i think it was necessary.
Maybe as an additional check on deception researchers could poll people afterwards to find out if the deception had worked and throw out the results of the people who had caught on.
Also, to me, deception falls under the category of white lies. Just as some people believe that the damage done in animal research is less than the total benefit to society, a few harmless lies don't counteract the positive benefits of psychological research.
I agree with most of the people who posted, too many to list, that deception is not very nice or safe but it is necessary to further the understanding of human behavior.
I agree with Amy when she said that Latane and Darley's experiment proved that people are not inherently good when they are around others but when they are alone they feel that they are obligated to help but around others they depend on someone else to help.
1.Social psychology improved its status as a "soft science" byu utilizing deception in its experiments. Midway through the
20th century scientists began conducting experiments with independent and dependent variables
2.Latane and Darley, found that if a stranger is in trouble, a person is more likely to help the stranger if said person is alone, as opposed to if the person is around others.
3.I believe there is a place in psychology for deception, so long as the research that is being conducted is beneficial to the greater good of humanity, people should not be decieved if the deception can scar their minds permanently
I agree with Dan, because it is true people act diffrently when they know their actions are being watched and recorded, they will act diffrently if they know the actual pretense of certain psychological studies
I also agree with what Caitlyn has to say about how people react in the moment diffrently from how they would using a logical thought out reasoning. I think that the impulses of a person reveal far more than the measured practical thought of everyday life
Post a Comment