Issues and Debates

Universality: Any underlying characteristic of human beings that is capable of being applied to all, despite differences in experience and upbringing.

Alpha bias exaggerates differences between the sexes. Such differences are typically presented as fixed and inevitable. These differences are more likely to devalue females in comparison to males. An example is the sociobiological theory of relationship formation which explains human sexual attraction and behaviour through the principle of 'survival efficiency'. It is in the male's interest to impregnate as many women as possible to increase the chances of his genes being passed on to the next generation. For a female, the best way to preserve her genes is ensuring the healthy survival of the few offspring she is able to produce in her lifetime. The central premise of the sociobiological theory is that sexual promiscuity in males is genetically determined whilst females who engage in the same behaviour are regarded as going against their 'nature'.

Beta bias ignores differences between men and women. This often occurs when female participants are not included as part of the research and then it is assumed that the findings apply equally to both sexes. Another example is the fight or flight response. Research into fight or flight was based exclusively on male animals because female hormones fluctuate and was assumed to be a universal response. Shelley Taylor et al. suggested female biology has evolved to inhibit the fight or flight response, shifting attention towards caring for offspring and forming defensive networks with other females.

Androcentrism

A possible consequence of beta bias is androcentrism. If our understanding of what counts as 'normal' behaviour is being drawn from research that involves an all male sample, then any behaviour that deviates is likely to be judged as 'abnormal', 'inferior' or deficient' by comparison; this leads to female behaviour being misunderstood and pathologised. For example, many feminist commentators have objected to the diagnostic category pre-menstrual syndrome because it stereotypes and trivialises female experience. Critics claim is it a social construction which medicalises female emotions, especially anger, by explaining these in hormone terms. Male anger, on the other hand, is often seen as a rational response to external pressures.

Issues of gender bias often go unchallenged. For example, Darwin’s established theory of sexual selection suggests that women are selective in terms of mate selection. These views have only recently been challenged by DNA evidence suggesting that women are equally as competitive as men when the need arises. It is important that old theories are revisited and reviewed with current research being conducted to support or refute the claims being made.

By developing a greater understanding of gender bias, psychologists have put forward a number of solutions. For example, some psychologists attempt to develop theories that emphasise the importance or value of women. Cornwell et al. (2013) noted that females are better at learning, as they are more attentive and organised, thus emphasising both the value of and the positive attributes of women. As a result, this type of research helps to reduce or challenge gender stereotypes, and change people’s preconceptions, which is important in reducing gender bias.

Another way to reduce gender bias is to take a feminist approach that attempts to restore the imbalance in both psychological theories and research. For example, feminist psychology accepts that there are biological differences between males and females, but argues that socially determined stereotypes make a greater contribution to perceived differences. Research by Eagly (1978) claims that females are less effective leaders than males. However, the purpose of Eagly’s claim is to help researchers develop training programs aimed at increasing the number of female leaders in the real world.

Sometimes the gender bias can work against males as well as females, as sometimes alpha bias theories heighten the value of women. For example, Chodorow (1978) viewed women as more relational and caring. Another example is that women are more likely to be diagnosed with depression and given treatment than males. This may be because women are more likely to suffer from depression, or it could be that the diagnostic system may be biased towards finding depression among women. The expectation that males should be able to ‘pull themselves together’ may highlight an issue with the diagnostic systems for mental disorders.

Gender-biased research may create misleading assumptions about female behaviour, fail to challenge negative stereotypes and validate discriminatory practices. It may provide a scientific 'justification' to deny women opportunities within the workplace or in wider society. In any domain in which men set the standard of normalcy, (Carol Tavris) 'it becomes normal for women to feel abnormal'. Thus, gender bias in research is not a methodological problem but may have damaging consequences which affect the lives and prospects of real women.

Many claim that findings in psychology only apply to the particular groups of people who were studied. Critics argue that psychology has generally ignored culture as an important influence on human behaviour, and has mistakenly assumed that findings derived from studies carried out in Western culture can be applied all over the world. For example, social influence studies of conformity and obedience originally conducted with US participants, revealed very different results when they were replicated in other parts of the world. If the 'norm' for a particular behaviour is judged only from the standpoint of one particular culture, then any cultural differences in behaviour - that deviate from this standard - will be seen as 'abnormal'.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is a particular form of cultural bias and is a belief in the superiority of one's own cultural group. In psychological research, this may be communicated through a view that any behaviours which do not conform to the Western model are deficient. Ainsworth's Strange Situation is an example of this, criticised as reflecting only the norms and values of American culture. Ainsworth identified the key defining variable of attachment type as the child's experience of anxiety on separation. She suggested the 'ideal' attachment was characterised by the infant showing moderate amounts of distress when left alone. However, this led to misinterpretation of child-rearing practices in other countries which were seen to deviate from the American 'norm'. For example, German mothers were seen as cold and rejecting rather than encouraging independence in their children.

Cultural Relativism

Ainsworth's research is an example of imposed etic. In assuming the US-based model of classifying attachment was the norm, Ainsworth imposed her own cultural understanding upon the rest of the world. Berry has drawn a distinct between etic and emic approaches in the study of human behaviour. An etic approach looks at behaviour from outside a given culture and attempts to describe those behaviours that are universal. An emic approach functions from within certain cultures and identifies behaviours that are specific to that culture. Ainsworth is imposed etic because she studied behaviour within a single culture and then assumed her ideal attachment type could be applied universally. Psychologists should be more mindful of the cultural relativism of their research - the findings may only make sense from the perspective of the culture within which they were discovered - and being able to recognise this is one wy of avoiding cultural bias in research.

Culturally biased research can have significant real-world effects by, for example, amplifying and validating damaging stereotypes. The US Army used an IQ test before WWI which was culturally biased toward the dominant white majority. Unsurprisingly, the test showed that African-Americans were at the bottom of the IQ scale and this had a negative effect on the attitudes of Americans toward this group of people, which highlights the negative impact that culturally biased research can have.

There has also been some progress in the field of diagnosing mental disorders. Early versions of the American DSM system virtually ignored mental disorders that are found mainly or exclusively in non-American cultures. DSM-IV in 1994 acknowledged the inadequacy of that approach and included a short appendix on culture-bound syndromes found in other parts of the world. However, Kleinman and Cohen (1997) dismissed this appendix as “little more than a sop thrown to cultural psychiatrists and psychiatric anthropologists” and pointed out that detailed work in several non-Western cultures had uncovered many disorders totally ignored by DSM-IV. Examples include: pa-fend (fear of wind) found in China; amafufunyana (violent behaviour caused by spirit possession) found in South Africa and brain fag (problems in concentrating and thinking produced by excessive study) found in West Africa.

One way to deal with cultural bias is to recognise it when it occurs. Smith and Bond found, in their 1998 survey of European textbooks on social psychology, that 66% of the studies were American, 32% European, and only 2% from the rest of the world. This suggests that much psychological research is severely unrepresentative and can be greatly improved by simply selecting different cultural groups to study. Therefore, just by appreciating and understanding cultural bias can help psychologists to avoid and overcome this issue.

‘Emic’ - an approach which emphasises the uniqueness of every culture by focusing on culturally-specific phenomena. The problem with this kind of approach is that the findings tend to be significant only to the understanding of behaviour within that culture. ‘Etic’ - an approach that seeks universals of behaviour. One way to achieve this whilst avoiding cultural bias is to use indigenous researchers in each cultural setting. Buss and co-workers did this in their studies of mate preference (we will cover this in relationships). The data was collected from people in 37 different cultures to get a universal look at behaviour. In each cultural setting there were three local researchers - one translated the questionnaire from English to the native language, one translated answers back into English and the third resolved any discrepancies.

Free Will

Free will suggests that as human beings we are self-determining and free to choose our thoughts and actions. A belief in free will does not deny that there are biological or environmental forces that exert influence on our behaviour, but we are able to reject these forces and master our own destiny.

Determinism

In contrast, determinism suggests that free will has no place in explaining behaviour.

Hard determinism suggests that all human behaviour has a cause and it should be possible to identify and describe these causes. Hard determinism always assumes that everything we think and do is dictated by internal or external forces that we cannot control.

Soft Determinism acknowledges that all human action has a cause but also suggests that people have conscious mental control over the way they behave. This does not detract from the freedom we have to make rational conscious choices in everyday situations.

Biological, Environmental and Psychic Determinism

Biological: The biological approach emphasises the role of biological determinism in behaviour. Our physiological and neurological processes are not under conscious control. In addition, lots of behaviours and characteristics are thought to have a genetic basis and research has demonstrated the effect of hormones.

Environmental: Skinner described free will as 'an illusion' and argued that all behaviour is the result of conditioning. Our experience of 'choice' is the sum total of reinforcement contingencies that have acted upon us throughout our lives. Although we might think we are acting independently, our behaviour has been shaped by environmental events, as well as agents of socialisation.

Psychic: Freud agreed that free will is an 'illusion' but places more emphasis on the influence of biological drives and instincts than behaviourists. His brand of determinism sees human behaviour as determined and directed by unconscious conflicts, repressed in childhood. There is no such thing as an accident, according to Freud, and something random and innocuous as a 'slip of the tongue' can be explained by the underlying authority of the unconscious.

Humanist psychologists would argue against the idea of determinism, claiming that humans have self-determination and free will and that behaviour is not the result of any single cause. Furthermore, there is evidence to support this claim. Identical twin studies typically find an 80% similarity in intelligence scores and a 40% similarity in the likelihood of depression. However, as identical twins share 100% of their genes, these results suggest that 20% is caused by other (environmental) factors. This demonstrates that biological determinism is unable to explain any particular behaviour, in this case, depression and intelligence. The same evidence indicates that no behaviour is completely environmentally determined. If identical twins only show an 80% likeness in terms of intelligence, it is therefore assumed that only 20% is caused by the environment, highlighting a limitation with biological and environmental determinism.

While Freud appears to support a deterministic point of view, in that he argued that the unconscious controls our actions and our thoughts, the goal of psychoanalysis is to help patients overcome that force. This insight has been taken up by several neo-Freudians, and one of the most influential has been Erich Fromm (1941). He argued that all of us have the potential to control our lives but that many of us are too afraid to do so, which means we give up our freedom and allow our lives to be governed by circumstance, other people, political ideology or irrational feelings. However, determinism is not inevitable, and Fromm sees the essence of human freedom in being the choice between good and evil.

However, the idea of free will has attracted similar criticisms. Some psychologists, such as Skinner, argue that free will is an illusion. Skinner insisted that our behaviour is in fact environmentally determined, even if we are unable (or unwilling) to admit it. Also, more recent evidence provides some support for Skinner’s claim. For example, Libet et al. (1983) found that the motor regions of the brain become active before a person registers conscious awareness of a decision - participants took part in an EEG experiment where brain’s electrical activity was measured and they had to report when they had decided to move their finger - brain registered decision before person stated they had consciously made decision. This strongly suggests that many responses are biologically determined and that although we may believe that we have free will, Skinner’s claim that free will is an illusion, may be correct.

Science is heavily deterministic in its search for causal relationships as it seeks to discover whether X causes Y, or whether the independent variable causes changes in the dependent variable. For example, in Loftus and Palmer’s (1974) research, they manipulated the verb used in the critical question (IV), to measure the effect on the participant’s estimate of speed (DV). In Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, he manipulated the condition to which the children were exposed (aggressive role model, non-aggressive model and no role model) to examine the effect on the behaviour of children. While experiments are keen to establish causation, where X causes Y, they typically discount or minimise the importance of extraneous variables that have not been controlled.

Furthermore, experiments often make sweeping generalisations about human behaviour and don’t acknowledge that at a different time, in a different place, our behaviour may not be influenced by X.  There are so many variables that influence human behaviour that it is impossible to control them effectively. Finally, according to Baumeister (2009), psychological causality as revealed in psychology laboratories is arguably never deterministic. Statistical tests show the probability that something occurred by chance. This means that our entire statistical enterprise is built on the idea of multiple possibilities rather than a single cause.

Nature: Early nativists such as René Descartes argued that human characteristics are innate. In contrast, empiricists argued that the mind is a blank slate at birth upon which learning and experience write: the result of the environment. The heritability coefficient is used to assess heredity. It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1.0 which indicates the extent to which a characteristic has a genetic basis.

Nurture: The concept of nurture and environmental influences in psychology requires further clarification as 'the environment' is a broad concept. Lerner has identified difference levels of the environment.

Relative Importance of Heredity and Environment

The nature-nurture question is impossible to answer because environmental influence in a child's life begins as soon as it is born. Nature and nurture and closely intertwined that it makes little sense to try to separate the two. For example, in twin studies, it is difficult to tell whether a high concordance rate are the result of shared egenics or shred upbringing.

Interactionist Approach: Nature creates nurture. Heredity and environment interact.

Diathesis-Stress Model: The diathesis-stress model suggests that psychopathology is caused by a biological vulnerability which is only expressed when coupled with a biological environmental 'trigger'.

Epigenics: A change in our genetic activity without changing out genetic code. It is a process that happens throughout life and is caused by interaction with the environment. Aspects of our lifestyle, and the events we ecounter, leave epigenic 'marks' on our DNA. These marks tell our bodies which genes to ignore and which to use and may go on and influence the genetic codes of our children, as well as their children. Epigenics introduces a third element into the nature-nurture debate; the life experience of previous generations. Dias and Ressler gave male lab mice electric shocks every time they were exposed to the smell of acetophenon. The mice showed  a fear reaction as soon as the scent was presented. The rats' children also feared the smell even though they had not been exposed to acetophenon before or received any shocks.

Research suggests that the nature-nurture debate has become a meaningless distinction and there is a growing body of research which highlights the importance of an interactionist approach. Research examining neural plasticity in the topic of biopsychology suggests that life experiences (nurture) shape our biology (nature). For example, Maguire et al. (2000) investigated the hippocampi volume of London taxi drivers’ brains. She found that this region of the brain was larger in taxi drivers in comparison to non-taxi drivers. Consequently, Maguire concluded that driving a taxi (nurture) actually had an effect on the size of the hippocampi (nature), demonstrating the importance of an interactionist approach and presenting evidence that nurture can affect nature.

While twin studies are often used to provide support for the nature argument, nearly all twin studies also highlight the need for an interactionist approach. Nestadt et al. (2010) examined previous twin studies in relation to OCD. Nestadt found an average concordance rate of 68% in MZ twins and a 31% concordance rate in DZ twins, highlighting a significant genetic component. These results do provide evidence of a strong genetic component, as the concordance rate of MZ (68%) twin is significantly higher than the DZ twins (31%), which suggests that behaviour is partly attributed to nature because MZ twins share 100% genetic relatedness. However, the results also highlight the role of nurture as the concordance rate is not 100%, again highlighting the importance of taking an interactionist approach. Therefore, this provides further support for the idea that nature and nurture should not be separated and that an interactionist stance should be taken instead.

The notion that genes and environment interact is elaborated by constructivism. People create their own ‘nurture’ by actively selecting environments that are appropriate for their ‘nature’. Thus a naturally aggressive child is likely to feel more comfortable around children who show similar behaviours and will ‘choose’ their environment accordingly. This environment then affects their development. Robert Plomin (1994) refers to this as niche-picking and niche-building – further evidence that it is impossible to try to separate nature and nurture influences on the child’s behaviour.

Those that argue nature suggest that ‘anatomy is destiny’ in that our inherited genetic makeup determines our characteristics and behaviour, whilst the environment has little input. This extreme determinist stance has led to controversy such as that which attempted to link race, genetics and intelligence and the application of eugenics policies. In contrast, those arguing nurture would suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions. Behaviour shaping has had practical application in therapy. Desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced, and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored. In extreme terms this could lead one to advocate a model of society that controls and manipulates its citizens using these techniques.

A group of researchers declared that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This view is the basis of holism in psychology: the idea that any attempt to break up behaviour and experience is inappropriate as these can only be understood by analysing the person or behaviour as a whole. This is a view shared by humanistic psychologists.

Reductionism analyses behaviour by breaking it down into its constituent parts. It is based on the scientific principle that all phenomena should be explained using the most basic principles. This is often the simplest, easiest and most economical level of explanation.

Levels of Explanation in Psychology

'Levels of explanation' suggest there are different ways of viewing the same phenomena in psychology. For example, OCD may be understood in a socio-cultural context as producing behaviour, that most people would regard as irrational: psychological level, obsessive thoughts: physical level and hypersensitivity of the basal ganglia: neurochemical level.

Psychology can be placed within a hierarchy of science, with the more precise at the bottom, and the more general at the top. Researchers who favour reductionist accounts of behaviour would see psychology as replaced by explanations derived from those sciences lower down the hierarchy.

Biological Reductionism

Biological reductionism is based on the premise that we are biological organisms made up of physiological structures and processes. Therefore all behaviour is at some level biological and so can be explained through neurochemical, neurophysiological, evolutionary and genetic influences. This is the assumption of the biological approach and has been successfully applied to a number of different topic areas in psychology. For example, the effects of psychoactive drugs on the brain have contributed much to our understanding of neural processes and the fact that it might be possible to explain serious mental disorders at a biochemical level.

Environmental Reductionism

The behaviourist approach is built on environmental reductionism. Behaviourists study observable behaviour only and break complex learning up into simple stimulus-response links that are measurable within the laboratory. Therefore the key unit of analysis occurs as the physical level - the behaviourist approach does not concern itself with mental processes of the mind that occur at the psychological level. The mind is regarded as a 'black box' - irrelevant to the understanding of our behaviour. The process of thought itself was seen as a form of 'sub-vocal' speech, characterised by physical movement, the same as any other behaviour.

There are often aspects of social behaviour that only emerge within a group context and cannot be understood at the level of the individual group members. For example, if we consider the effects of conformity to social roles and the de-individuation of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, this cannot be understood by studying the participants as individuals as it was the interaction between people and the behaviour of the group that was important. This shows that holistic/same level explanations provide a more complete and global understanding of behaviour than reductionist approaches.

Holistic explanations in psychology tend not to lend themselves to rigorous scientific testing and can become vague and speculative as they become more complex. For example, humanistic psychology tends to be criticised for its lack of empirical evidence, and is instead seen by many as a rather loose set of concepts. Higher level explanations that combine many different perspectives present researchers with a practical dilemma: if we accept that there are many factors that contribute to something (e.g. depression) it becomes difficult to establish which is most influential and which one to use, for example, as a basis for therapy. This suggests, when it comes to finding solutions for real-world problems, lower level explanations may be more appropriate.

Reductionist approaches have been accused of oversimplifying complex phenomena leading to a loss of validity. Explanations that operate at the level of the gene, neurotransmitter or neuron do not include an analysis of the social context within which behaviour occurs – and this is where the behavior in question may derive its meaning. For instance, the physiological processes involved in pointing one’s finger will be the same regardless of the context. However, an analysis of these will not tell us why the finger is pointed. This means that reductionist explanations can only ever form part of an explanation.

Another alternative to reductionism is the interactionist stance. Whereas holism is more concerned with higher level explanations of behaviour, interactionism considers how different levels of explanation may combine and interact. An example is the diathesis-stress model. This model has led to a more multidisciplinary and ‘holistic’ approach to treatment – combining drugs and family therapy for instance – and is associated with lower relapse rates (Tarrier et al., 2013).

A reductionist approach often forms the basis of scientific research. In order to create operationalised variables it is necessary to break target behaviours down into constituent parts. This makes it possible to conduct experiments or record observations (behavioural categories) in a way that is meaningful and reliable. Behavioural approach – able to show how complex learning can be broken down to simple stimulus-response links within the lab. This gives psychology greater credibility, placing it on equal terms with the natural sciences lower down in the reductionist hierarchy.

The Idiographic Approach

The idiographic approach in psychology describes the nature of the individual. People are studied as unique entities, each with their own subjective experiences, motivations and values. There may be no attempt made to compare these to a larger group, standard or norm. 

The idiographic approach is generally associated with those methods in psychology that produce qualitative data, such as case studies, unstructured interviews and other self-report measures. This reflects the central aims of radiographic research: to describe the richness of human experience and gain insight into the person's unique way of viewing the world.

Humanistic psychology takes on an idiographic perspective. Carl Rogers and Abraha, Maslow took an approach to the study of human beings and were interested only in documenting the individual's conscious experience.

The psychodynamic approach is idiographic because of Freud's use of the case study method when detailing the lives of his patients. However, Freud also assumed he had identified universal laws of behaviour and personality development.

The Nomothetic Approach

The main aim of the nomothetic approach is to produce general laws of human behaviour. These provide a 'benchmark' against which people can be compared, classified and measured, on the basis of, which likely future behaviour can be predicted and/or controlled.

The nomothetic approach is most closely aligned with methods regarded as 'scientific' within psychology. These involve the study of large numbers of people in order to establish ways in which people are similar. The nomothetic approach is a feature of approaches that are reductionist, and deterministic and employ scientific methods of investigation, hypotheses are formulated, and tested under controlled conditions and findings are generated from large numbers of people.

Much of the research conducted by behaviourist, cognitive and biological psychologists are nomothetic approaches. For example, Skinner studied the responses of rats in order to develop laws of learning; cognitive psychologists can infer the structure and processes of human memory by measuring the performances of large samples in a laboratory; biological psychologists conducted brain scans on many human brains in order to make generalisations about the localisation of function. In each, hypotheses are tested, analysed and general laws are proposed and developed.

The idiographic approach is unable to produce general laws or predictions about human behaviour, and that severely limits its usefulness as a source of practical knowledge about the diagnosis and treatment of psychological disorders.  Furthermore, many psychologists criticise the idiographic approach for its essentially unscientific nature. The emphasis on in-depth data collection and the difficulties in arriving at justifiable generalisations contradicts the central purpose of any mature science: to explain the most variation in the fewest possible terms so that phenomena can be predicted and ultimately controlled. Research practices that do not address these goals can seem scientifically pointless.  However, idiographic researchers respond to these criticisms by emphasising the evidence-based nature of their descriptions and conclusions, and the critical awareness embedded in their research techniques, and often claim that the validity of their findings is more secure than that which rests entirely on statistical analysis. As Allport noted when introducing the terms into American psychology in 1937, it is only through the understanding of single individuals that psychologists can hope to predict how such individuals will behave in a given situation.

Unlike the idiographic approach, the nomothetic approach is considered as generally scientific. The use of experimental (quantitative) methods, controlled measurement and the ability to predict behaviour, are all seen as strengths of the nomothetic approach.  Furthermore, controlled methods allow for replication to examine the reliability of findings which has helped psychology establish itself as a scientific discipline. The development of theories and empirical testing are just one of the key features of science that are employed by the nomothetic approach.  Furthermore, because the nomothetic approach is viewed as scientific, it is useful for predicting and controlling behaviour. For example, biological psychologists take a nomothetic approach when explaining obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and claim that OCD is caused by higher levels of dopamine and lower levels of serotonin.  Drug therapies are developed on the basis of nomothetic research and work by redressing a biological imbalance. SSRIs are used to treat OCD and increase the availability and uptake of serotonin, thus reducing the anxiety associated with OCD, which helps to improve the lives of people suffering from this condition. 

However, there are numerous strengths of taking an idiographic approach, and a case study method is a powerful tool for evaluating psychological theories.  The case of Patient KF (Shallice and Warrington, 1970) exposed a limitation of the Multi-Store Model of Memory, by providing evidence that our STM comprises of at least two components (auditory and visual memory) and not one, as stipulated by Atkinson and Shiffrin. Consequently, a single case study can generate further research into a particular phenomenon (e.g. memory), which contributes to the development of new theories that further our understanding of human behaviour.  While case studies can highlight a flaw in psychological theories and prompt further research, the case study method and other qualitative methods are extremely time-consuming. For example, Freud’s case study of Little Hans consists of almost 150 pages of verbatim quotes from Little Hans’ father, as well as detailed descriptions of the events in Little Hans’ life.  Freud did go on to create universal theories of personality development during childhood; however, these were based on limited and unrepresentative case studies that many psychologists would discredit. 

Ethical Implications

Ethical guidelines were established to help protect those involved in psychological research once it has been conducted. Researchers may exercise considerable control over the methods they select and the way they treat participants, they may have relatively little say in how the research findings and represented in the media, the impact of their work on public policy, and how it may influence our perception of particular groups in society. This amounts to a concern with the wider ethical implications of the research.

Socially Sensitive Research

Some areas of research are likely to be more controversial and be subject to greater social sensitivity. A study that examines the cognitive processes involved in long-term memory, for example, is unlikely to have far-reaching consequences for those that take part or for the broader social group the participants represent. Research investigating the genetic basis of criminality on the other hand, might. Studies that tackle socially sensitive 'taboo' topics, also attract a good deal of attention from psychologists, media and the public at large. However, just because this is the case, psychologists shying away from research may be socially sensitive. Because of the undoubted importance of research, psychologists may have social responsibility to carry it out.

Ethical Issues in Socially Sensitive Research

Sieber and Stanley identified concerns that researchers should be mindful of when conducting socially sensitive research:

• Implications: The wider effects of such research should be carefully considered as some studies may be seen as giving 'scientific' credence to prejudice and discrimination, such as studies examining the racial basis of intelligence. However, the implications of research may be difficult to predict at the outset
• Uses/Public Policy: What is the research likely to be used for. What would happen if it was used for the wrong purpose. This is related to the idea that findings may be adopted by the government for political ends of to shape public policy
• Validity of the Research: Some findings that were presented as objective and free-value in the past have turned out to be highly suspect, and in some cases, fraudulent. However, many modern social constructionist researchers are much more up-front about their own biases and preconceptions and include comments on the reflexive nature of their work in their publications.

With socially sensitive research, there is an increased potential for a more indirect impact on the participant’s family, co-workers or the group that the participant represents. For example, research into addicts can impact the individuals being researched and addicts as a group within society, particularly if it is used to inform policy or procedure. Therefore it is necessary to think about the likely impact of the research on the larger group of which the participant is a member.

Psychologists typically deal with ethical issues in research by developing strict guidelines for the conduct of their studies. Ethical guidelines may protect the immediate needs of research participants but may not deal with all the possible ways in which research may inflict harm on a group of people or section of society. For example, ethical guidelines do not ask researchers to consider how their research might be used by others. In addition, it can be hard to fully anticipate the full effects research might have on society. Therefore, assessments of such research are invariably subjective, and the real impact of research can only ever be known once it has been made public.

Many groups in society have suffered the consequences of having been excluded from research or being misrepresented. It might be argued that our understanding of human behaviour has been lessened by misinterpretations of or failure to include representative samples of persons with disabilities, the elderly, the disadvantaged, and members of minority cultures. The failure to accurately represent and research such groups carry an additional ethical issue - the fact these groups then miss out on any of the potential benefits of research.

It can be argued that the solution to socially sensitive research is to just avoid it. However this would probably leave psychologists with nothing but unimportant issues to examine. Despite the ethical implications associated with research into controversial and ‘taboo’ topics, Sandra Scarr (1988) argues that studies of underrepresented groups and issues may promote a greater sensitivity and understanding of these. This can help reduce prejudice and encourage acceptance. Similarly, socially sensitive research has benefited society – for instance, research into the reliability of eyewitness testimony has reduced the risk of miscarriages of justice within the legal system. This suggests that socially sensitive research may play a valuable role in society.

In the past, socially sensitive research has been used to inform policies that disadvantaged or discriminated against specific groups in society. For example, in America in the 1920s and 30s, a large number of US states enacted legislation that led to the compulsory sterilisation of many citizens on the grounds that they were ‘feeble-minded’ and a drain on society. This included people deemed to be of low intelligence, drug or alcohol addicts and the mentally ill. The rationale, supported by many sections of the scientific and psychological community at the time was that such feeble-minded people were ‘unfit’ to breed. It is important that to reduce the likelihood of misuse of data, psychologists should be energetic in taking responsibility for what happens to their findings. They should be aware of the possibility that the results of their research might lead to abuse and discrimination or, as Sieber and Stanley (1988) suggest, offer ‘scientific credibility to the prevailing justice’.

However, as drug treatments are not successful for all patients, some psychologists argue that alternate treatments (e.g. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), which are based on an idiographic approach, are more suitable for treating individuals with such conditions, as they seek to understand and explain the disorder from a patient’s point of view.  Furthermore, these psychologists also claim that the nomothetic approaches only provides a superficial understanding of human behaviour.  For example, Milgram’s research found that 65% of participants obeyed an authority figure and inflicted a 450-volt electric shock because they were ordered to do so. However, the results fail to provide an explanation of why each person obeyed, and there may have been very different circumstances that led to the obedience found in each participant. Idiographic researchers would argue that Milgram’s research only allows us to make predictions on groups and not on individuals. While Milgram might predict that 65% of the population would obey an unjust order, he is unable to accurately predict what an individual would do.  Allport (who first coined the term idiographic) argued that it is only by understanding an individual that we can make accurate predictions of individual behaviour. 

Holt (1967) argues that the idiographic/nomothetic distinction is a false distinction.  Many approaches in psychology take advantage of both approaches and therefore the two approaches can be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory.  For example, while cognitive psychologists typically take a nomothetic approach and create general laws of cognitive processes (e.g. the Working Memory Model), they also take advantage of the idiographic approach when using case studies to provide evidence for a particular theory (e.g. Patient KF, Shallice and Warrington, 1970).  In reality, many research studies make use of both approaches, and it could be argued that the distinction between idiographic and nomothetic is meaningless and that psychologists should employ both methods depending on the nature of the research question.