Should psychology be written for the layman or should science be exclusively for scientists?

 For psychology to be understood and comprehended by everyone, surely it should be written for the layman, in a way that everyone can understand. For people interested in psychology, or any aspect of science, it would be very frustrating if all research and finding were written in a highly scientific way.

One half of this argument is that science should be restricted and kept for scientists only, as they will fully understand all of the findings ect. The other half of the argument is that by allowing everyone to access scientific findings, such laymen are learning about the human race. For knowledge of humans to grow and be passed on, then such information has to be available to everyone. If all findings and research was restricted to scientists, then no new knowledge would be shared. This information could be particularly useful for those in a career dealing with people, but who are not necessarily scientists. e.g. teachers.

Also scientists wouldn’t always have been scientists. They would have started off as laymen. If scientific information wasn’t freely available and understandable, would it have made it a lot harder for these people to chose their careers? People need to be able to read scientific research in an everyday way in order to be able to understand the scientific way in which they are written.

All in all scientific evidence should be available and easily understandable to everyone. No one is born with the ability to understand highly scientific documents without practice and teaching. Psychological research is very useful to pass down through generations as to inform others how the human race works.

Can correlation show causality?

The reason behind correlations and correlational research is to find the relationship between two variables. They test quantitative data, and are a highly useful tool in research. Correlations do not show causation, although they do show significantly strong relationships between the two variables.

When trying to assume causation, the independent variable needs to be correctly manipulated, and the dependent variable needs to be well controlled. If either of these two factors are not done correctly, we cannot start to assume causation. In correlational research, the data used is normally just general data, rather than the data from one sole experiment, so we cannot know that the variables have been controlled correctly.

Correlations do show relationships, for example it is well known that people who smoke are generally thinner than those who don’t. But  we don’t know if smoking actually causes people to be thinner as we don’t know all of the extraneous variables surrounding the data, and so we cannot just assume causation.

Generally, correlation does not show causality, however using correlations is a very useful tool to examine data. If the findings are shown to be statistically significant, it could in the future be used to help show causality through other experiments and ways of research.

Is it good science to keep adding participants/manipulating data until you find an effect?

 

Surely, the answer to this is no.

When conducing an experiment, the researcher obviously wants to find an effect and a significant result. However, if we find no effect at first and just keep adding participants until an effect is found, then surely we are just setting ourselves up for a type 1 error.

As a researcher you would want your data to show a significant straight away, with no manipulation so you could be as sure as possible that it is the independent variable causing the effect, not the manipulation or addition of participants.

There may be many reasons for a researcher wanting to manipulate their data. If they have been working on a study for a long period of time and invested a lot of money, then it must be frustrating to not find the effect wanted, however this does not justify changing their data falsely. From a study whose results are manipulated we cannot be sure to what degree we can trust it. For example, if a study was carried out on a skin care product, and the results were manipulated to show positive effects of said product, how can we be sure that it does what it claims too, and that it is safe?

It could also be said that the removal of outliers is manipulating data and should not be allowed. If one participant has not understood the study, then it is understandable why a researcher would remove this piece of data. However, where do you stop when you start? Taking out one piece of data may improve the results, and tempt the researcher to remove more to improve it further. This would then be manipulating the data until a significant result is seen, and doesn’t truly represent the conclusions drawn from the study.

Field vs Laboratory Experiments

Field vs Lab experiments.

 

Field experiments are carried out in the real world, away from a laboratory. The advantage of this type of experiment is that it is very practical. Field experiments also  allow experiments to take place, with no confounding variables being introduced. Field experiments are often used to study participant’s behaviour when they have no idea they are being watched. This allows the experimenter to gather true data.

An example of a field experiment is the Piliavin and Piliavin experiment where participants where measured on the likelihood of them helping a blood covered stranger.

However field experiments have no control group and there are often many variables that are not wanted.

Laboratory experiments are also known as true experiments. They are more ethical than field experiments as consent is always gained. For example, a study by Loftus and Palmer involved showing participants a clip of a car accident, in order for them to investigate eyewitness testimony. This experiment was more ethical as a lab experiment as the participants had consented to the study, and also they were not viewing the car accident as it happened.

Lab experiments are preferred as the environment and variables can be controlled, however this may lead to a lack of external validity. This refers to ability to generalise a set of results from a small study to the real world. Laboratory experiments manipulate the independent variable, and this manipulation indicates a cause and effect relationship. The ability to manipulate the independent variable is one of several factors which I believe make laboratory experiments more valuable than field experiments. Lab experiments also offer higher internal validity, which makes lab experiments superior to field experiments.

 

http://www.psychblog.co.uk/where-to-start/social-piliavin-rodin-piliavin-1969

 

Click to access AS_Psych_final.pdf

Why is the ‘file drawer effect’ a problem?

The file drawer effect, or problem, refers to the occurrence of a number of studies in a particular field of psychology being conducted, but never reported. It could be that the studies that are not reported, could offer different findings from the studies that have been reported. Researches providing conflicting evidence for other pieces of work are never reported, and so the successfully reported research is taken as being true.  Research that is lost in a file drawer can result in a bias. For example, if all reported research about a particular subject shows positive results, then there is a bias. No one knows that more research disproving the published work exists.

It is thought that journals could be made up of 5% of studies, which for example show a type 1 error, but the other 95% of research lost in a file drawer, show conflicting results.

There is an example of the file drawer effect in animal studies, where negative results are not published, and this in turn could have an effect when animal research is expanded to use human clinical trials.  If negative results are not published, it has the potential to cause harm to someone.

With the file drawer effect, it is expected that positive results are published, and negative ones are not. If a piece of works shows a particular treatment to have worked, it is more valuable to the journal and the author, and is therefore more likely to get published. A set of results with no measurable effects are the ones which are less likely to be reported.

The effect of the file drawer problem is that research may not be represented correctly. This then causes problems for processes such as meta-analysis, which consequently may need to take into account the possibility of a bias. The file drawer problem causes psychology a problem as we cannot be sure how much conflicting evidence there is, and how serious a bias may be.

 

 

References.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/86/3/638/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/being-negative-is-not-so-bad/

Neural Correlates of a mystical experience in Carmelite nuns.

 

This study was investigating the correlation between neural activity and a mystical experience. A group of Carmelite nuns were measured for brain activity while they were engaged in a mystical experience, such as being united with God.

In light of the findings that this study produced the title of the journal article is accurate. The study’s results show that when a person experiences a mystical experience there was a significant amount of activity in many parts of the brain. This shows that mystical experiences are related to many different regions of the brain and also to different brain systems.

In the study, the mystical condition was told to remember the most intense mystical experience they had ever had as a member of the Carmelite order, and to relive it. The control condition was given the same instruction only the participants in this condition were to remember and relive the most intense state of union with another person, while they were a a member of the Carmelite order. The baseline group was simply told to engage in a simple restful state. The blood oxygen level was measured  during the experiment in each of three conditions. There was a Mystical condition, a Control condition and a Baseline condition.

The explanations of the findings are acceptable given the design of the study. A group of fifteen Carmelite nuns took part in this study. None of the nuns smoked, nor did they have any psychiatric disorder or had a history of one. They also had no neurological disorder history. Informed consent was gained from all participants. The study was also approved as ethical by the CRIUGM.

One limitation with this study was the fact that the participants were not actually engaged in a mystical experience, they were just asked to remember one and to try and relieve it. They were not practicing a mystical experience at the time of study as they told the researcher that they were not capable of reaching a mystical state on command. However, from the results it can be seen that this didn’t pose too much of a problem. The data gathered indicates the participants did actually engage in a mystical experience during the study.

The report and headline suggested that mystical experiences are related to neural activity.  Given the study that was described, this conclusion is warranted.  The study describes how the participants were measured and which areas of the brain showed activity when the nuns were engaged in a mystical experience. Brain scans were also taken of the participants brains which also show the level of neural activity when they were in a mystical state.

 

 

To what extent can twin studies assist the nature/nurture debate?

Studies carried out on both monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins are extremely important to psychological research.  Monozygotic twins carry 100% of the same genes, and dizygotic carry 50% identical genes. The biological approach believes that all disorders are down to genetics. Adoption and twin studies have shown that some mental disorders are caused by an individual’s genetic makeup.

In psychological research, twin studies aim to find out how significant environmental factors are, compared to genetic factors. Due to monozygotic twins sharing 100% of their genes, any differences between monozygotic twins raised together, and dizygotic twins raised together must be due to genetics.

Gottesman and Shields (1972) followed 57schizophrenics from1948 and 1964. If the twins were discordant, then one twin had schizophrenia and the other did not then they were monitored for 13 years to see if schizophrenia then developed in both twins. It was found that the concordance rate for monozygotic twins was 42% and for dizygotic twins the concordance rate was 9%.

This shows that although genetics does play a part in the likelihood of a person having schizophrenia, there has to be an environmental factor too. If mental illness was simply only due to genetics, then the concordance rate for monozygotic twins would be 100% because they share 100% of their genes.

For this reason twin studies can be slightly problematic. They do suggest that mental illness is defiantly linked to genetics but they cannot say to what extent. If genetics was the sole cause of mental disorders then the concordance rate for monozygotic twins would be 100%. As this is not the case, it suggests that environment also plays a part.

Classical and Operant Conditioning.

Both operant and classical conditioning are important concepts centred on behavioural psychology. They both concern learning, and the process of it, but their processes are quite different.

Classical conditioning is the response to repeated stimuli, or learning associations between different things. For example, when a hungry baby is fed, the baby then feels pleasure. It’s longing for food is then fulfilled whenever the baby’s mother is around, and so an association is formed between the baby’s mother and food.

Classical conditioning can be seen in a study by Pavlov (1927). In his study he wanted to measure the amount of salvia dog produces when presented with a certain stimuli. He was originally studying digestion in dogs, but he soon became aware of the fact that the dogs produced saliva whenever one of the assistances entered the room. He then realised that the dogs were responding to the white lab coats of the assistances, and not food. The white lab coats were the neutral stimulus. He then decided to change the neutral stimulus to the sound of a bell. The bell would sound, and then the food would be presented immediately afterwards. After trying this several times it was noticed that the dogs would saliva at the sound of the bell, even if no food was produced. This type of conditioning is primarily concerned with involuntary and automatic behaviours.

Operant Conditioning is learning through reinforcement.  Dollard and Miller (1950) explained operant conditioning by saying that when a baby is hungry, he or she feels discomfort, and the way to remove their discomfort is to get food. They soon learn that if they cry, their mother will feed them, and so the discomfort is relieved. This is negative reinforcement. From this, the baby’s mother is then associated with food which has been learnt through reinforcement.  This approach focuses on strengthening or weakening a subject’s voluntary behaviour.

Both types of conditioning are used frequently by teachers, parents, animal trainers and psychologists, and they are both equally valuable to psychological research. They both offer an explanation of how behaviours can be learned and taught, but in different ways. The main difference being that classical conditioning involves placing a natural stimulus before the required reaction. In contrast, operant conditioning applies reinforcement or punishment after behaviour has been given.  Although the two do clash, they are of equal importance to psychology.

Do research methods suggest psychology to be a science or not?

For something to be considered a science, it must have one single specific paradigm. It is argued that psychology is not a science because there is no single, unified approach that is common across all of the areas within psychology. However, psychologists argue that there have already been a number of paradigm shifts starting with structuralism, then functionalism, psychodynamic and so on. Thomas Khun (1990) said that psychology is a ‘pre-science’ because of the lack of one paradigm. Therefore implying that although psychology wasn’t a science then, it could be considered scientific in the future.

Popper (1969) who supported the psychodynamic approach, said that for a hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be falsifiable. For something to be scientific it must be able to be proved wrong. The human mind cannot be studied in a scientific way, therefore it cannot be falsifiable so it cannot be considered a science. A simple example of falisfiability would be we cannot prove that every raven in the world is black, unless we have seen every raven. This theory cannot be scientifically proven. However it can be disproved. By the sighting of one single white raven, the whole theory has proved to be falsifiable.

Reductionism v Holism suggests psychology to be a non-science also. Holism knows the importance of considering all influencing factors in human behaviour. Reductionism doesn’t take many outside factors into account. For example, to learn to speak we need the left cortex of the brain, the reductionists do not take into account that to learn to speak, we need social interaction. Holism would take into account all outside factors when devising a theory.

In science, only observable measures are recorded. Psychology is the study of mind and behaviour, and although behaviour can be recorded, the human mind can’t. Thoughts and feelings are unobservable. The psychodynamic and the cognitive approaches both focus on thoughts and how a person feels, neither of which can be recorded.

Behaviourists like Skinner explain all behaviour as a result of previous learning. We learn all of our behaviour from copying others as a child. This view is reductionist as it takes very complex behaviour and explains them by a simple stimulus and response connection. The biological approach can also be considered reductionist. It compares mental illnesses to diseases and says that they can be cured with drugs. It is being reductionist by identifying the source of a mental illness as a hormone imbalance, there are many more factors to take into consideration when diagnosing and treating mental illnesses.

From the above examples, I would conclude that psychology is not a science, at least not yet, although it does hold some qualities of a science. Khun (1990) described psychology as ‘a pre-science’, so in the future psychology may become a recognised science.

Do ethics restrict psychology?

In psychology we refer to ethical guidelines which are set down for us by the BPS (British Psychological Society).  As psychologists we have a moral duty to protect our participants from harm. It is for this reason we follow the ethical guidelines. The question is, do ethics go too far sometimes?

 

The main focus of debates about ethics often includes deception, potential harm, informed consent and confidentiality.

It is stated by the BPS that if a proposed piece of research has ‘scientific, educational or applied value’ then deception may be considered. Otherwise we are not supposed to intentionally deceive participants. However, by telling a participant everything there is to know about a study means that they are much more likely not to give genuine results and show demand characteristics so which side are we to take?

Milgram’s study was unethical due to deception. He told his participants that the study was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning. This wasn’t the case, so he intentionally deceived his participants.

If you would like to read further on Milgram’s study I have provided a link.

http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm

 

Informed consent must outline the study to the participant, and gain their consent. But is it always possible to gain informed consent? It is not, but this is acceptable if the study requires studying participants in an everyday situation where they would expect to be viewed i.e in a shopping centre. Participants must receive an outline of the study, what procedure is going to be used, possible risks, the aim of the study and the length of the study. However with informed consent, demand characteristics could again play a part in not providing a reliable set of data.

 

Confidentiality is keeping the participants and the data they provide confidential unless full consent is gained from the participant to use their results again. However, in the case of a brain scan being obtained for a study and an abnormality being found nothing can be done without causing some harm to the participant. So do we keep the information secret or tell the participant when we are not qualified to diagnose, and there potentially be nothing wrong?

 

Potential harm is the psychological harm we could cause by conducting a study. There is always a degree of harm that could be caused. The ethical guidelines are there to determine which can or cannot go ahead. For example, the potential harm in Zimbardo’s prison experiment was huge, but it was conducted as ethical guidelines were not there to say otherwise. The results from this experiment were huge, so are ethics too restricting in some cases?

Again the link below details The Stamford Prison Experiment, should you want to read up on it. http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm

 

So, do ethics hinder psychological discoveries in any way? I personally believe that ethics are important, and that we, as psychologists, need guidelines as to what can and what cannot be done. Studies which were once approved would now never happen, but with ethical guidelines in place, big discoveries are still being made. However, some guidelines do hinder a study, or affect a studies result in some way. But without ethics the results from a psychological study would not be reliable, or valid and for psychology to be considered a science the use of ethics is vital.