Social Sensitivity [20]

To what extent is socially sensitive research justified? (20)

How does Sieber and Stanley (1988) define socially sensitive research (SSR)?

• "Studies which there are potentially negative social consequences or implications, either directly for participants or for the class of individuals represented in the research".

• SSR can be subject to societal norms (societal norms can make SSR more or less sensitive), controversial (has ethical implications that go beyond the research situation and affect people outside the study negatively), able to shape the law/policy and risking harm or prejudice to the members of the group being studied, friends and relatives of the participants, the research team, and the institution in which the research is conducted.

• Socially sensitive research may lack validity as it's subject to biases.

What are factors that contribute to SSR?

Factors that contribute to SSR are the phrasing of the research question (e.g., if the research question is one-directional and makes one group of people in society look inferior), the methodology of the study (e.g., whether or not the researcher breaks confidentiality if a participant admits to committing a serious crime), the institutional context (who's using and funding the research) and the interpretation and application of findings (if the findings could be interpreted in a way that justifies discrimination or causes prejudice, the research is socially sensitive).

Example of SSR in child psychology?

• Ainsworth's strange situation procedure (SSP), where she tested the attachment styles of 106 infants aged 12-18 months to their mothers.

• Her research supported her Maternal Sensitivity Hypothesis, which suggests that how sensitive a mother is to their child and how responsive they are leads to their attachment style, which Ainsworth categorised as secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant.

How is Ainsworth’s study socially sensitive?

• It blames mother's bad parenting strategies on children's emotional difficulties.

• This theory is particularly socially sensitive as the SSP only found 66% of children to be securely attached, therefore implying that 44% of the mothers were insensitive to their children's needs, thus making this study socially sensitive.

• Some psychologists and members of society may feel that the SSP therefore is not justified because of the embarrassment, shame, guilt and distress this blame could cause mothers.

• One in nine maternal deaths in the UK is as a result of suicide.

• In fact, it is the leading cause of death of mothers in the first year after their child is born (Maternal Mental health Alliance, 2017) and therefore the SSP could even lead to the suicide of mothers if they blame themselves and spiral into negative thoughts.

Who also used the SSP which is SSR?

• More socially sensitive in cross-cultural variations of the procedure.

• E.g. Takahashi et al repeated the SSP in Japan and found that 55% of the Japanese children were classed as insecure-resistant, and in most cases, the researchers had to stop the study because the children were so distressed.

• This is because of cultural differences in parenting, children tend to not leave their mothers side until the age of 5 so it made sense that they were extremely distressed.

• This creates the stereotype that Japanese mothers aren't good mothers, thus making it socially sensitive as these findings could cause discrimination against Japanese female caregivers which could cause physical and psychological harm to these mothers and their families.

• This potential psychological harm is one reason why some people would argue that the SSP research is not fully justified.

What argument suggests the benefits of SSP outweigh issues of social sensitivity?

Researching attachment types has led to society understanding how to be better parents (Benoit et al, 2004) to raise more emotionally healthy kids children, e.g. by encouraging consistent 'attune' parenting (Main et al, 2005) to improve caregiver sensitivity and secure attachments, which could ultimately improve society as a whole because it reduces the amount of people who need mental health support stemming from childhood (insecure) attachment issues.

What did Spies et al (2021) say about the SSP?

• Mary Ainsworth's SSP is a "legacy (which) continues to shape the social and developmental sciences well after her death."

• They suggest that the SSP has, for decades, "not only provided the underpinning methodology of attachment research, but also the frame of reference for theory".

• The fact that Ainsworth’s SSP is still inspiring child-centred and attachment-centred research around the globe suggests that these childcare benefits are long-lasting which justifies the use and publication of SSR into attachment.

How is EIBI socially sensitive?

• EIBI effectively forces autistic children to act in neurotypical ways that may not be comfortable for them to try make them appear 'normal'.

• Uta Frith (2003) supports this idea by asserting that the diagnosis of ASD focusses on deficits and lack of 'normal functioning'.

• She suggests diagnosis should focus on the superior abilities of those with ASD eg they show better local cognitive processing like understanding detail compared to their 'global cognitive deficits'- the lack of seeing the big picture.

• Focussing on deficits can lead to stigma & disempowerment.

• This causes detrimental effects to anyone with ASD and their families, making it socially sensitive, therefore it is not justified to use it in society.

What justifies SSR into Autism?

DSM-5 continues to use the term 'deficit' in its diagnostic criteria, and the criteria themselves can and does help many autistic individuals gain validation, understanding, support and help that they want and need.

What did Dawson (2008) suggest?

• That ElBI can change the course of brain development for children with ASD before the 'full' autistic syndrome develops.

• This sees ElBI as a 'preventative therapy' which could result in huge cost savings and improve the quality of life of affected individuals and their families.

What research supports this point?

• Early interventions can also lead to better educational outcomes (Baron-Cohen et al (2006)) which means people with ASD could be more independent, earn money and contribute financially to society thus being financially viable in the long-term.

• In this way, maybe SSR into Autism could be justified for many autistic individuals and the utilitarian argument is that by helping the majority, this help is justified.

How can research into biological theories of aggression be seen as SSR?

It can be misinterpreted in various ways; for example, people can use 'my brain made me do it as an excuse for violence, or perpetuate the stigma that aggressive people are out of control and unable to change, which could then lead to the belief that aggressive people should be locked away and kept separated from the rest of society.

What research supports this?

• Raine et al, who found significant differences in brain structure and function of murderers pleading NGRI and non-murdering controls.

• Additionally, evolutionary theories of aggression suggest that sexual jealousy and partner-focussed aggression (domestic violence) is innate.

What second piece of research supports this?

• Buss (1998) identified two mate retention techniques used by males to control their partners: direct guarding of the female which is when the male partner restricts her movements and negative inducements to prevent her straying include things like financial control or the threat of violence.

• Buss's research is clearly socially sensitive as it can be seen to justify domestic violence which could encourage violent males to control their partners in coercive and violent ways-causing psychological and physical harm to the partners and their families.

• Thus Buss' research and other research into evolutionary bases of negative and harmful behaviours could be seen to be unjustified.

What justify’s Raine et al’s research?

• Raine did try to make his research less socially sensitive by including a disclaimer in his journal that his findings should not be used to screen people for aggressive brain structures, they were unable to establish cause and effect (did murder cause different brain structure or did different brain structure cause them to murder), and his findings were not generalisable as he only looked at 41 murderers pleading NGRI, who are atypical for murderers.

• This disclaimer justifies the use of SSR, as Raine never intended the findings to be used for any form of societal change.

What research into prejudice can be argued as SSR?

• Sherifs' realistic conflict theory suggests that the presence of competition for limited resources can cause prejudice, which becomes a societal issue as competition is everywhere in the real world

• E.g., competing for jobs, houses, social media followers, etc., and the theory fails to consider that people can choose to be prejudicial, meaning that it can be argued that prejudice is innate and people who are being prejudiced cannot control themselves.

• This could lead to major problems in society, like people not being held accountable for being discriminatory and laws changing to reduce punishment for being prejudiced.

What did Deschamps & Brown (1983) suggest?

• "There are circumstances when superordinate goals may not reduce intergroup conflict" which adds another reason as to why Sherif's SSR should not have been carried out.

• There are valid reasons to not carry out SSR.

• E.g. SSR can harm the participants that are part of the study, their friends and families, and the researchers and institutions that fund the studies.

• The research findings by themselves, if they are misused, or if they are taken out of context can lead to psychological and/or physical harm to marginalised groups in society.

• It can be argued that the risk of harm outweighs the potential good of SSR, so some psychologists argue that SSR is not justifiable.

How can research into prejudice be justified for SSR?

• Needs to be a balance of how much psychologists study socially sensitive topics.

• Take prejudice as an example, although it is a socially sensitive area to study, if psychologists choose to not study it, we have no hope of being able to understand it, therefore no way of reducing it, or its harm to society, as prejudice is universal and happens against many marginalised communities in society.

• E.g., the LGBTQIA+ community and BIPOC.

Examples which justify carrying out research on SSR about prejudice?

• Introducing superordinate goals (Sherif's findings) have been shown to reduce prejudice in some situations (Gaetner et al, 2000) which could justify SSR like Sherif's as long as harm can be minimised.

• It can be argued that psychologists are doing society a disservice by not studying socially sensitive areas, as they are often phenomena that need to be studied most to reduce overall harm on society.

How do psychologists argue that ignoring socially-sensitive research abandons our ‘social responsibilities’?

• E.g. Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues, as scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• By gaining a better understanding of socially sensitive areas like gender, race, and sexuality, we as a society become more accepting, thus reducing prejudice

An additional piece of research to support this?

• Scarr (1998) argued that the only way for the science and general community to develop a greater understanding for these underrepresented groups is to study these socially sensitive areas.

• Additionally, its estimated that 90% of research published in textbooks is carried out on white, middle class, Americans.

• Studying socially sensitive areas (such as minority groups and sexuality/class/gender/ ethnicity-related research) will reduce this bias, overall improving the quality and diversity of psychological research.