3.4: Controversies
Ethical issues are a major consideration in all current studies, and many past studies would no longer be allowed.
The key issue is whether societal impact can outweigh the ethical costs.
Studies may have to deceive participants in order to avoid demand characteristics. Can small lies be that harmful?
Some areas of psychology, such as clinical psychology, may harm patients by giving them different therapies to test this effectiveness, but this could result in ensuring proper care for thousands of other patients.
Some key examples of research:
Loftus and Palmer deceived the participants of the real aims of their study, which is extremely influential.
Watson and Reyner enacted considerable psychological harm to Little Albert in their study, but proved how fear responses could be conditioned into children.
The BPS have four main sections within ethical principles:
Respect - for the dignity of people, valuing their dignity and with special consideration to influence over people’s rights and perceived dynamics of authority. This includes consideration of:
Privacy and confidentiality.
Cultures.
Impact on broader levels.
Issues with power.
Consent.
Self-determination.
Importance of empathy and compassion.
Competence - in the services provided. This includes consideration of:
Whether appropriate skills are possessed.
Referrals if something is out of a skill set.
Advancing the evidence base.
Maintenance of skills.
Ethical evaluations.
Limitations to competence and how this can be mitigated.
Caution before claiming knowledge.
Responsibility - for actions within within their power. This includes consideration of:
Professional accountability.
Responsible use of knowledge and skills.
Respect for humans, animals and the physical world.
Competing duties.
Integrity - achieved by being honest, consistent and fair. This includes consideration of:
Honesty and openness.
Unbiased and accurate representation.
Fairness.
Avoidance of conflicts of interest and exploitation.
Maintenance of personal and professional boundaries.
Addressing misconduct.
These guidelines can help manage the risks of unethical research, as psychologists understand what is required of them.
Studies must be approved by an ethics committee - a panel of experts that review studies and discuss whether they should be allowed to go ahead.
They can give recommendations on how to mitigate the ethical costs.
Any research published using unethical studies cannot be published.
Research into mental health conditions can benefit those who are suffering and their relatives.
Research into neuroscience can advance our knowledge on the how humans function and help with some physical conditions.
Research into other areas, such as childhood development, memory, stress, etc can all wield positive results for society.
These can also positively impact society, by researching how best to treat certain conditions less money is wasted on less effective ones.
Examples are:
Bowlby’s research on attachment showing the importance of emotional care in early childhood.
Loftus and Palmer showed the untrustworthiness of witness testimony alone, which could help prevent wrongful convictions.
Studies into pharmaceutical treatments, such as SSRIs.
Sieber and Stanley drew attention to studies which have potentially negative outcomes on the groups studied, known as socially sensitive research.
They do not believe these topics should be avoided, however, but should be considered.
Examples are:
The Bell Curve book by Murray and Hernstein argues that people a part of disadvantaged groups should not receive educational opportunities as they are genetically predisposed to this fate. This could lead to governments supporting this idea.
Milgram’s study of obedience supports the claim that people, such as Nazis, will commit acts just because they have been ordered to. This could potentially justify these acts.
The impact on the individual participants should also be considered.
They can suffer psychological harm throughout experiments.
Their rights need to be considered throughout experiments.
There are 5 key issues:
Deception - Participants should not be lied to.
Right to withdraw - Participants should be able to withdraw at anytime, and should never believe they cannot withdraw.
Informed consent - The participant should know the aims of the study, as well as what the study involves, before participating.
Privacy - Participants have the right to be anonymous.
Psychological harm - Participants should not be harmed physically or emotionally.
Examples of studies that highlight these issues:
Milgram’s study of obedience tricked participants into believing they were actively hurting another human being, causing psychological harm.
However, 83.7% were glad to have participated. Some individuals may be willing to suffer for the benefit of society.
Loftus and Palmer mitigated participant harm by showing video clips, and asking questions instead of mimicking trial questioning.
This may cause issues with ecological validity, as it does not properly represent how an individual will react due to the emotional impact of being an actual witness.
Non-human animals, such as mice and dogs, have been used in many psychological experiments.
The key question is, can these studies be justified?
Advantages of these studies:
Human application, due to common ancestry with monkeys.
Avoidance of human ethical issues.
Many studies avoid harm and stress.
Extraneous variables are eradicated.
Life and breeding cycles are faster, allowing for intergenerational research.
Genetic modification can be used to research specific illnesses.
Disadvantages of these studies:
Generalisability issues. Humans are much more complicated than animals, and have different social systems, organs and intelligence. Are animals the same as humans?
Animals are also different to each other, meaning animal research cannot be generalised across other animals.
They lack ecological validity as they occur in a lab.
Many ethical issues, as animals cannot consent or withdraw. They often experience psychological and physical harm, and die. Some argue this is an example of speciesism.
These follow the British legislation, which requires that animal experiments must take place in licensed labs, with licensed researchers and licensed projects. However, this only applies to certain animals. Primates, cats, dogs and horses have additional protections, which could be argued as speciesism.
All animal experiments require legal approval, which is only given if:
Potential findings are important enough to justify any harm done to the animals.
It cannot be done using another method, such as humans, simulations or ethological assessments.
The minimum number of animals is used.
Suffering is kept to a minimum.
The 3 Rs are used:
Replacement: Can a non-animal method be used?
Reduction: What is the minimum number of animals necessary?
Refinement: Can the study be refined to avoid suffering, via improving living conditions, limiting harmful methods, less transport, etc.
Other general guidelines are:
Species should be suited to the studies purpose.
Knowledge of the origins of the animal, such as whether it was raised in captivity is important. This can determine the level of care necessary but also the validity of the study, as captivity born animals may act more pliant to humans than wild ones.
Care for animals includes when they are not being studied, and they need to be kept in accordance to their needs, such as having companions.
Painful procedures should only occur if there is no other alternative.
Food intake should be considered, so animals eat a healthy amount for their species.
Animals should be procured only from suppliers, and not from any shelters.
After the study, they can be reused, kept for breeding or even distributed among the staff as pets as long as proper care is maintained. If in too much pain, they can be humanely euthanized.
However, these guidelines aren’t worldwide which can cause issues with citing studies which do not follow them.
There are also no legal repercussions, but studies that violate these rules cannot be published and the researcher can be punished by the BPS.
It can be argued they should be punished using animal abuse laws.
Kilkenny et al. analysed UK and US studies that used animals (not just psychological studies) and found that the number of animals varied in different sections or was not mentioned and many were poorly designed.
Was in partnership with the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals (NC3Rs) meaning it may be biased.
Comparative psychology studies non-human animals to compare to humans.
Examples are:
Harlow’s research into understanding the motherly role, by removing an infant monkey from its mother and providing it with two alternatives; a wire mother which provided food and a cloth mother which provided comfort. Infant monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother, showing that comfort was vital to form a bond between mother and child.
However, the infant monkeys had emotional issues and were unable to raise their children or interact with other monkeys, suffering severe psychological harm.
His experiments were exceptionally cruel, with he himself saying he hated animals. He used a ‘rape rack‘ and ‘pit of despair‘ to test on monkeys - terms he coined himself.
It could be argued that this could help improve the lives of monkey’s within captivity.
Alexander et al. looked at the effects of isolation on rats and their likelihood to self-administer morphine, using 4 different morphine concentrations and 3 control solutions.
They found isolated rats drank more morphine solution than rats in a colony.
He also found those previously isolated drank more than those completely in a colony, but only at the lowest concentration.
This has many implications for addiction, but is quite harmful to the rats.
Ethological psychology studies non-human animals in their own environments, with a lesser focus on generalising to humans.
These can not draw cause and effect conclusions, as there can be many extraneous variables.
They can take months to complete and be extremely costly, and are often prone to observer bias.
However, this may be the best way to observe natural social behaviour in animals.
Researchers have to minimise their interference with these animals, therefore limiting tags which may stress animals.
They also have to minimise harm in the ecosystem
An example is Jane Goodall’s chimpanzee research, which showed that chimpanzee’s could make their own tools.
Animals, such as therapy dogs, are used to help people in many circumstances. It is also referred to as AAT (animal assisted therapy).
The animals can act as ‘co-therapists‘ to help them express social skills, or as comforters.
Some research into this:
A meta-analysis by Kamioka et al. looked at AAT’s effectiveness in the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders, across a range of animals. They concluded that it can be effective in addiction, depression and schizophrenia, but that the studies done were generally of poor quality and more research was needed.
Studies have shown that this can also be helpful in a school environment, such as increasing school attendance, but this has some risks:
Allergies.
Fears of certain animals.
Potential animal attacks.
Nahm et al. found that therapy dogs in ER departments also helped - both staff and the patients.
There was once incidence of a therapy dog lying dog, helping to show a little boy he could lie down for a CT scan.
Issues with hygiene.
Fears of dogs.
May get in the way.
A term coined by Singer, which means discrimination on the basis of species. He believes this to be on the same level as sexism or racism. There are many different arguments to the morality of this:
Singer himself argues that whatever brings the greatest amount of good should be done, so some experiments can be justified if they bring great societal benefit. He still believes animal suffering should be taken into account, if this is greater than the benefits, the study should not be done. This is a utilitarian stance.
Dunayer argues that laws on animal experiments set the standard, but can still be immoral. He equates this to American laws on slavery.
Grey, however, argues that humans have a special duty of care towards humans, and human life is above animal life. Therefore, animal experiments are justified if they help humans, no matter the suffering.
Regan believes that no animal experimentation can ever be justified, as all are morally incorrect. This is an absolutist view.
Animal rights is a new concept, and is not universally acknowledged. Some believe that as animals have no responsibilities, or any laws, they do not have any rights.
This has been criticised, as children, elderly and people with some developmental disabilities equally have no responsibilities as they are unable to care for themselves. However, they still deserve rights.
Animals may also be sentient, meaning they can feel, think and experience emotions.
It can be argued they are not on the same level of sentience, therefore do not experience suffering on the same level as humans.
Some humans, such as those comatose or brain damaged, may also lack sentience, but again still deserve rights.
The Treaty of Lisbon declared that all animals are sentient.
Psychology is now widely considered a science by most within the subject, and at most major universities.
However, some within and outside of the subject disagree with it as a science, due to it’s subject matter - humans.
As a science, psychological claims must be backed up by research in order to be respected in society
This prevents people from making unfounded claims about human behaviour, without data or science.
This can help prevent discrimination by countering views, such as that ethnic group have a lower intelligence.
In the past, homosexuality was in the DSM as a mental illness or perversion, and once removed, society began to accept that homosexuality was normal.
It has been fully legalised in the UK, and other areas around the world.
Could be argued that psychology labelling it as a deviance may have begun the stigma, and thus it is partly to blame.
This shows the great effect that psychology can have within society, and it’s influence.
Another example is addiction. In the past, it was seen as a moral defect or personality flaw, the addict was seen as solely to blame.
Psychological research, however, showed that other factors could be attributed, such as biological, social and environmental roots.
This helped treatments move from punishments to rehab, allowing for more ethical treatments.
‘Common sense’ can not always be relied on within psychology, as proven by Milgram’s study.
Claims should always be studied before being made.
Disputing past claims can help us better understand ourselves in the present, and in the past.
Psychology is used within modern medicine, and needs to be empirical in a clinical context.
Treatments should undergo randomised control trials to see which is the best for each disorder.
This can help lower NHS costs, but also reduce waiting times and help people receive the best treatment possible.
Labelling psychology as a science can help society see mental illness on the same level as physical, and therefore alleviate some associated stigma.
Psychology has changed a lot since it’s beginnings, becoming more scientific over time.
Hippocrates in 400 BC credited human behaviour to the four humours, believing an excess or lack of any of these humours could cause depression and aggression. This idea persisted until the 19th century.
Wundt set up the first psychology lab, and trained students in introspection (observing and reporting thought processes).
While this can be considered approaching a scientific method, observations and self-reports are not objective, and therefore can have issues.
Freud used case studies and clinical interviews in an idiographic way, meaning his evidence cannot be used scientifically.
While not falsifiable, his theories of the unconscious mind and the effects of childhood had great benefits.
Watson can be considered the father of modern psychological science. He believed the focus should be on observable behaviour, as thoughts and feelings cannot be objectively understood.
This limits a lot of what psychology can explore, and is not agreed with currently.
Self-reports can be compared to a patient reporting pain, why do we only trust when the symptoms described are physical?
Triangulation is a method used to improve validity of findings. It involves using different methods of investigations and comparing the results.
For example, measuring a person’s physical responses such as heart rate, as well as asking how they feel.
This can allow an objective conclusion to be reached without worrying about objectivity and lack of nuance.
Peer review can also be used, by checking other psychologists work for observer bias.
This also prevents unscientific psychological research from being published, therefore causing harmful ideas to be spread.
Miller argued psychology is a pseudoscience, as it does not adhere to the key scientific principles.
This could be dangerous, as if psychological ideas are mistaken for facts they can be wrongfully used for things such as public policy.
Popper argued that observations are inherently biased, and therefore are not a good scientific method.
This is particularly true when the subject is human behaviour, but is true across all sciences.
Heather was dismissive of lab experiments, calling them artificial representations of human behaviour.
Field experiments can also be used, but incur many issues, such as ethics.
Maslow said that the uniqueness of humans doesn’t fit into the scientific method, and it is therefore a poor method of psychology.
He believed idiographic and less reductionist investigations were necessary.
Clinical psychology, and our understanding of mental illness, are greatly affected without reductionism. It is also a key scientific principle.
Rogers believed these methods were the only way to get the deepest insight into experiences.
This is extremely unreliable and non-generalisable data, making it unscientific.
While humanists would argue this is the point, this eliminates any overall understanding of human behaviour, and allows for understanding of only a few selective individuals.
Laing believed that scientific approaches ignore the individual experiences, pain and suffering of a patient of mental health conditions.
He argued that individuals can only be treated effectively as individuals.
While this is true in that not all psychological treatments work for all patients, without a guideline of what treatments are most effective, how can psychologists know where to start?
Approaches without psychology use different methodologies, and have different explanations for the same phenomena. Therefore, calling all psychology scientific is hard.
Biological and behaviourist approaches are quite scientific, looking at brain scans and observable behaviour, but suffer in understanding different aspects.
For example, behaviour can be influenced by behavioural and biological factors, something which neither approach addresses.
Cognitive psychology uses lab experiments, but have to make inferences on what people are actually thinking.
Positive and psychodynamic psychology are non-scientific and unreliable.
A gender bias is present in many psychological theories, due to studies that only study men and positive biases towards male researchers.
There have been many attempts to fix this using more female perspectives, gender balanced studies and understanding females contribution to science.
This is known as androcentrism - men are centred, and women exist only to be compared to men. Male norms are norms, and females norms are abnormal.
Wilkinson argued that women are excluded and their experiences are devalued by this comparison.
Additionally, research into differences between men and women could be classed as socially sensitive.
Kitzinger argued that these differences have been used to oppress women (asylums, limiting from higher education, etc).
Therefore this research is political.
This is the assumption that there are differences, and in the case of sexism, the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different.
An example of this is Freud’s theory of psychosexual development, which argued that women are morally inferior to men.
He believed that women not having a penis caused them to suffer from ‘penis envy.’
They also don’t suffer from an oedipus complex, and therefore cannot develop a superego.
Female behaviour is often pathologized, as it is seen as deviant compared to male behaviour.
Tavris used the example of PMS - women and men have mood swings, but only women’s are made into a syndrome.
There is no evidence women’s competence is linked to hormones, while there is evidence mens is.
Anti social behaviour is linked to high testosterone levels.
Tavris also argued female and male behaviours are attributed to different causes, men have issues with upbringing while women must have innate psychological issues.
This is the ignorance of genuine differences between groups, and in the case of sexism, between men and women.
This can occur when there is no women in an experiment, as their results cannot be compared and so the male result is considered the norm.
An example of this is Kohlberg’s theory, which was applied to both men and women and led him to conclude women did not have higher reasoning.
Gilligan argued that women used care principles over justice in moral decisions, therefore his research devalued female perspectives.
Additionally, male animals are preferred as subjects due to their estrous cycles, meaning gender bias may even exist in animal studies.
There is few genuine, consistent differences. A systematic review by Maccoby and Jacklin concluded there was 4 differences that had strong evidence:
Girls have a greater verbal ability.
Boys have better visual and spatial abilities.
Boys have better math ability, but only in adolescence.
Girls are less aggressive, this is present across cultures from around 2 years of age.
Another issue with this is whether this is due to culture or biology.
From a young age, male and female children are treated differently.
Male toys are based around science, while female toys are based around domestic chores.
Additionally Rosenthal found that researchers treated female participants different, being more encouraging, honest and friendly.
This may mean that gender differences present in studies may be caused by the way they are treated.
‘Male and female subjects may, psychologically, simply not be in the same experiment at all‘
Non-heterosexual orientations/relationships (homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, aromantics, etc) have been largely ignored, both in research and media.
This is likely due to the stigma around homosexuals, such as criminalisation and view of it as a mental illness.
This means studies into relationships, such as satisfaction and happiness studies, have results that only relate to heterosexuals but are generalised to both.
A liberal humanism approach, which views that homosexuals are diverse, natural and unthreatening to heterosexuality has helped change attitudes.
Alpha bias
Research comparing these two groups could be labelled as socially sensitive, as negative results could change attitudes against homosexuals.
Additionally, homosexuals may suffer more from social desirability bias as they may want to boost positive attitudes towards them.
These studies often have methodology issues. Due to the only recent legalisation of gay marriage, many older studies compare married heterosexuals to cohabiting homosexuals, which causes them to lack validity.
Blumstein and Schwartz compared couples that had been together more than 10 years, finding that 22% of wives, 30% of husbands, 43% of lesbians and 94% of gay men had slept with a different person to their partner.
This research did not consider alternative explanations to cheating, such as polyamory.
Beta bias
Buss’s cross-cultural research into attraction found that men prefer younger, more fertile women and women prefer older, harder-working men.
He attributed this to evolution, as they are both looking for the best characteristics for child-rearing.
However, homosexuals cannot have children through traditional means, and therefore cannot look for these traits in a mate. Additionally, men looking for the same traits in each other would not cater to a child.
There is a lack of research into what gay people are attracted to, but also bisexuals, asexuals and polyamorous people.
Similarities
Most research points to these relationships being quite similar:
Kurdek and Schmitt compared love and liking across four groups, cohbaiting heterosexuals, married heterosexuals, gay couples and lesbians couples.
He found that all groups rated a similar level of love, and heterosexual cohabitors reported a lower level of liking.
Peplau found that homosexual and heterosexual relationships last longer if they have similar backgrounds and similar commitment levels.
Therefore, similar factors influence relationship success in hetero and homosexual relationships.
Throughout history, women have been devalued and seen as lesser to men in intelligence and strength.
These attitudes are still prevalent in society today, although they are less aggressive, and past studies are still used.
Currently, studies must address if differences between men and women are culturally or biologically caused, instead of assuming biology.
Past harmful beliefs
Using androcentrism as the standard, most studies in the past were conducted on men, and women were either assumed to be the same or lesser.
Many men believed women inherently wanted to be mothers and wives, and didn’t not wish to seek intelligence.
Bowlby’s research into maternal deprivation focused only on how women affect children, and cannot be generalised to non-traditional relationships of the present (single parents, non-married parents, gay parents, polyamorous parents, adopted children, etc).
The Stanford-Binet test, which gives a mental age of participants, was designed for men but used on women.
Women also had less education at this time.
This led to Virginia forcibly sterilising 7,500 women between 1924-1972. They targeting unwed mothers, prostitutes and those ‘feeble-minded‘. This meant women were targeting to not adhering to social norms.
Feminist psychology
This sect aimed to address sexism within psychology, and has no clear definition, but aims to:
Focus on more women psychologists.
Research women better.
Have equal male and female participants in studies.
Recognise the gender bias present in psychology.
Wilkinson listed three major improvements it could bring:
Identification of unrecognised bias.
Increase in critical thinking.
Broadening research by looking at under researched areas such as women’s struggles and generation of new outlooks to old issues.
Social construct
There has been evidence to show sexism exists from infancy to adulthood:
Mondschein et al asked mothers to predict how successful their babies would be at crawling, and while there was no actual difference, mothers had lower expectations for girls.
Smith and Lloyd found that mothers would select toys based on gender; dolls for girls and hammers for boys. They also responded more actively when boys showed increased motor activity.
The gender of the babies was randomised, but they would be dressed in boy/girl clothes and given a boy/girl name to alleviate the possibility of innate preferences.
Psychological studies are assumed to be done by men, due to only the surname being shown.
This is due to psychology’s masculinist bias, publishing male achievements and downplaying females.
Early in psychology, women could not attend courses and had PhDs refused.
Areas in which women are interested are often undervalued:
Psychology is around 50% female undergraduates and is often devalued as a science.
‘Female‘ areas of psychology, such as counselling, developmental and educational psychology are seen as less scientific.
This could due to women being more likely to pick these specialities, or even that women are ‘channelled‘ into these areas.
Culture is defined as groups of people that may differ in terms of norms, behaviours, practices, language, values beliefs, background, location, etc.
Even within main cultures, there is often subcultures. These could be based on gender, sexuality, race, age, etc.
Cultural bias is judging other cultures based off your own culture. This could be:
Theories applied to all cultures that only relate to one.
Participants only being from one culture - WEIRD.
This could be appropriate in certain examples, such as animal studies or studies that focus on one culture.
This is a specific technique within psychology - a natural study.
This aims to investigate the effects of various cultural practices on human behaviour.
They can also be used to see whether certain behaviour is innate to humans or environmentally caused (nature versus nurture).
If it reappears across cultures, it is likely innate.
Advantages:
Cross cultural studies help us understand innate behaviour.
They help us understand what is environmental, for example in the West schizophrenia symptoms involve harmful voices, and comforting in other parts of the world.
Disadvantages:
Psychologists may misunderstand cultures different from their own due to their own socialisation - observer bias.
For example, in Nigeria a common symptom of depression is a feeling of crawling on the skin, which could be misinterpreted as psychosis.
Tools used by psychologists may also be biased towards Western viewpoints. An example of this is intelligence tests.
The use of tests that were devised in one culture but used on another is known as imposed etic.
An example is Cole et al. which asked members of the Kpelle tribe in Africa to sort objects into groups.
They sorted items into functional groups (knife with an orange) instead of into categories (orange with an apple) as Western people would likely do.
Therefore, intelligent behaviour varies over cultures.
An example of a test with imposed etic is Kohlberg’s, as the moral scenarios were designed from a Western viewpoint and he concluded that children in Mexico and Taiwan developed slower.
This may have been due to children not understanding the proposed dilemmas.
Additionally, different cultures have different values, so can these stages be generalisable? (Individualism versus collectivism).
Additionally, this can ignore subcultures.
Vandello and Cohen found that those across America had different values; those in the Mountain West were more individualist and those in the Deep South were more collectivist.
When differences are found via cross cultural studies, it must then be determined if this is genuine or due to methodological issues.
For example, Harris investigated the role of love in 42 hunter gatherer societies.
He found 26 had romantic love, but only 6 had complete freedom to choose a marriage partner, and others had arranged marriages or the parents had the right to oppose.
This would suggest the notion of romantic love is not universal.
However, these results could be attributed to language barriers or understanding of love.
This is the view that one culture is superior and should be used to judge others.
Therefore, all other cultures are strange and worse.
A common type of this within psychology is Eurocentrism, where the focus is on Western values. Many theories within psychology reflect this bias.
Cultural relativism is the opposite, the idea that all cultures are worthy of respect and should be fully understood before studying.
Yet, this could cause an assumption of differences, but also an ignorance of differences that may be harmful.
Alpha bias
The assumption there are differences between groups, in the case of culture that cultures must act differently.
This can be harmful as there are some similarities between cultures in terms of mental illness symptomatology. Understanding universal symptoms could help determine biological and social causes.
Furthermore, Trandis et al. found that only 60% of people conform to dominant cultures, so not all people across cultures are different.
For example, some people in individualist societies may still hold collectivist values.
Beta bias
The assumption there are no differences between groups, in the case of cultures that all cultures are the same.
This could lead to assumptions that definitions are always the same. For example, Harris may have used a Western idea of romantic love and therefore misunderstood different cultures.
This also leads to theories being wrongfully generalised across cultures.
Amir and Sharon attempted to repeat 6 American studies on the Israeli population. Of 64 significant findings, only 24 were repeated and 6 new findings were obtained.
Psychology has been an exclusively Western subject for many years.
Rosenzweig found that 64% of the world’s psychologists are American.
Smith and Bond found that 66% of studies in psychology textbooks are American, 32% are European and 2% are from the rest of the world.
Furthermore, cultures change over time, especially as Western values become more universal.
Westen compared views from the 19th Century (quoted by a doctor, Mosher) about their sex lives. Those born in the middle of the century described it as vital for reproduction but not pleasurable. Those born towards the end described it in more positive terms, linking it to passionate love.
Time periods could therefore be seen as different cultures.
Another example is Bowlby’s study, which refers to 1950s cultural expectations of child care. These centred women as primary caregivers and often did not focus on emotional wellbeing.
This study could not be generalised to modern times due to this.
Therefore, older studies may lack temporal/historical validity.
While it still remains an issue, there have been attempts to mitigate cultural bias:
Encouragement of indigenous psychologists to carry out research on their own cultures, as they may grasp nuances outsiders do not.
An example is Afrocentrism, which focuses on values such as oneness with nature and survival of the tribe, over Eurocentrism’s focus on survival of the fittest and control over nature.
Ethical issues are a major consideration in all current studies, and many past studies would no longer be allowed.
The key issue is whether societal impact can outweigh the ethical costs.
Studies may have to deceive participants in order to avoid demand characteristics. Can small lies be that harmful?
Some areas of psychology, such as clinical psychology, may harm patients by giving them different therapies to test this effectiveness, but this could result in ensuring proper care for thousands of other patients.
Some key examples of research:
Loftus and Palmer deceived the participants of the real aims of their study, which is extremely influential.
Watson and Reyner enacted considerable psychological harm to Little Albert in their study, but proved how fear responses could be conditioned into children.
The BPS have four main sections within ethical principles:
Respect - for the dignity of people, valuing their dignity and with special consideration to influence over people’s rights and perceived dynamics of authority. This includes consideration of:
Privacy and confidentiality.
Cultures.
Impact on broader levels.
Issues with power.
Consent.
Self-determination.
Importance of empathy and compassion.
Competence - in the services provided. This includes consideration of:
Whether appropriate skills are possessed.
Referrals if something is out of a skill set.
Advancing the evidence base.
Maintenance of skills.
Ethical evaluations.
Limitations to competence and how this can be mitigated.
Caution before claiming knowledge.
Responsibility - for actions within within their power. This includes consideration of:
Professional accountability.
Responsible use of knowledge and skills.
Respect for humans, animals and the physical world.
Competing duties.
Integrity - achieved by being honest, consistent and fair. This includes consideration of:
Honesty and openness.
Unbiased and accurate representation.
Fairness.
Avoidance of conflicts of interest and exploitation.
Maintenance of personal and professional boundaries.
Addressing misconduct.
These guidelines can help manage the risks of unethical research, as psychologists understand what is required of them.
Studies must be approved by an ethics committee - a panel of experts that review studies and discuss whether they should be allowed to go ahead.
They can give recommendations on how to mitigate the ethical costs.
Any research published using unethical studies cannot be published.
Research into mental health conditions can benefit those who are suffering and their relatives.
Research into neuroscience can advance our knowledge on the how humans function and help with some physical conditions.
Research into other areas, such as childhood development, memory, stress, etc can all wield positive results for society.
These can also positively impact society, by researching how best to treat certain conditions less money is wasted on less effective ones.
Examples are:
Bowlby’s research on attachment showing the importance of emotional care in early childhood.
Loftus and Palmer showed the untrustworthiness of witness testimony alone, which could help prevent wrongful convictions.
Studies into pharmaceutical treatments, such as SSRIs.
Sieber and Stanley drew attention to studies which have potentially negative outcomes on the groups studied, known as socially sensitive research.
They do not believe these topics should be avoided, however, but should be considered.
Examples are:
The Bell Curve book by Murray and Hernstein argues that people a part of disadvantaged groups should not receive educational opportunities as they are genetically predisposed to this fate. This could lead to governments supporting this idea.
Milgram’s study of obedience supports the claim that people, such as Nazis, will commit acts just because they have been ordered to. This could potentially justify these acts.
The impact on the individual participants should also be considered.
They can suffer psychological harm throughout experiments.
Their rights need to be considered throughout experiments.
There are 5 key issues:
Deception - Participants should not be lied to.
Right to withdraw - Participants should be able to withdraw at anytime, and should never believe they cannot withdraw.
Informed consent - The participant should know the aims of the study, as well as what the study involves, before participating.
Privacy - Participants have the right to be anonymous.
Psychological harm - Participants should not be harmed physically or emotionally.
Examples of studies that highlight these issues:
Milgram’s study of obedience tricked participants into believing they were actively hurting another human being, causing psychological harm.
However, 83.7% were glad to have participated. Some individuals may be willing to suffer for the benefit of society.
Loftus and Palmer mitigated participant harm by showing video clips, and asking questions instead of mimicking trial questioning.
This may cause issues with ecological validity, as it does not properly represent how an individual will react due to the emotional impact of being an actual witness.
Non-human animals, such as mice and dogs, have been used in many psychological experiments.
The key question is, can these studies be justified?
Advantages of these studies:
Human application, due to common ancestry with monkeys.
Avoidance of human ethical issues.
Many studies avoid harm and stress.
Extraneous variables are eradicated.
Life and breeding cycles are faster, allowing for intergenerational research.
Genetic modification can be used to research specific illnesses.
Disadvantages of these studies:
Generalisability issues. Humans are much more complicated than animals, and have different social systems, organs and intelligence. Are animals the same as humans?
Animals are also different to each other, meaning animal research cannot be generalised across other animals.
They lack ecological validity as they occur in a lab.
Many ethical issues, as animals cannot consent or withdraw. They often experience psychological and physical harm, and die. Some argue this is an example of speciesism.
These follow the British legislation, which requires that animal experiments must take place in licensed labs, with licensed researchers and licensed projects. However, this only applies to certain animals. Primates, cats, dogs and horses have additional protections, which could be argued as speciesism.
All animal experiments require legal approval, which is only given if:
Potential findings are important enough to justify any harm done to the animals.
It cannot be done using another method, such as humans, simulations or ethological assessments.
The minimum number of animals is used.
Suffering is kept to a minimum.
The 3 Rs are used:
Replacement: Can a non-animal method be used?
Reduction: What is the minimum number of animals necessary?
Refinement: Can the study be refined to avoid suffering, via improving living conditions, limiting harmful methods, less transport, etc.
Other general guidelines are:
Species should be suited to the studies purpose.
Knowledge of the origins of the animal, such as whether it was raised in captivity is important. This can determine the level of care necessary but also the validity of the study, as captivity born animals may act more pliant to humans than wild ones.
Care for animals includes when they are not being studied, and they need to be kept in accordance to their needs, such as having companions.
Painful procedures should only occur if there is no other alternative.
Food intake should be considered, so animals eat a healthy amount for their species.
Animals should be procured only from suppliers, and not from any shelters.
After the study, they can be reused, kept for breeding or even distributed among the staff as pets as long as proper care is maintained. If in too much pain, they can be humanely euthanized.
However, these guidelines aren’t worldwide which can cause issues with citing studies which do not follow them.
There are also no legal repercussions, but studies that violate these rules cannot be published and the researcher can be punished by the BPS.
It can be argued they should be punished using animal abuse laws.
Kilkenny et al. analysed UK and US studies that used animals (not just psychological studies) and found that the number of animals varied in different sections or was not mentioned and many were poorly designed.
Was in partnership with the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement, and Reduction of Animals (NC3Rs) meaning it may be biased.
Comparative psychology studies non-human animals to compare to humans.
Examples are:
Harlow’s research into understanding the motherly role, by removing an infant monkey from its mother and providing it with two alternatives; a wire mother which provided food and a cloth mother which provided comfort. Infant monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother, showing that comfort was vital to form a bond between mother and child.
However, the infant monkeys had emotional issues and were unable to raise their children or interact with other monkeys, suffering severe psychological harm.
His experiments were exceptionally cruel, with he himself saying he hated animals. He used a ‘rape rack‘ and ‘pit of despair‘ to test on monkeys - terms he coined himself.
It could be argued that this could help improve the lives of monkey’s within captivity.
Alexander et al. looked at the effects of isolation on rats and their likelihood to self-administer morphine, using 4 different morphine concentrations and 3 control solutions.
They found isolated rats drank more morphine solution than rats in a colony.
He also found those previously isolated drank more than those completely in a colony, but only at the lowest concentration.
This has many implications for addiction, but is quite harmful to the rats.
Ethological psychology studies non-human animals in their own environments, with a lesser focus on generalising to humans.
These can not draw cause and effect conclusions, as there can be many extraneous variables.
They can take months to complete and be extremely costly, and are often prone to observer bias.
However, this may be the best way to observe natural social behaviour in animals.
Researchers have to minimise their interference with these animals, therefore limiting tags which may stress animals.
They also have to minimise harm in the ecosystem
An example is Jane Goodall’s chimpanzee research, which showed that chimpanzee’s could make their own tools.
Animals, such as therapy dogs, are used to help people in many circumstances. It is also referred to as AAT (animal assisted therapy).
The animals can act as ‘co-therapists‘ to help them express social skills, or as comforters.
Some research into this:
A meta-analysis by Kamioka et al. looked at AAT’s effectiveness in the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders, across a range of animals. They concluded that it can be effective in addiction, depression and schizophrenia, but that the studies done were generally of poor quality and more research was needed.
Studies have shown that this can also be helpful in a school environment, such as increasing school attendance, but this has some risks:
Allergies.
Fears of certain animals.
Potential animal attacks.
Nahm et al. found that therapy dogs in ER departments also helped - both staff and the patients.
There was once incidence of a therapy dog lying dog, helping to show a little boy he could lie down for a CT scan.
Issues with hygiene.
Fears of dogs.
May get in the way.
A term coined by Singer, which means discrimination on the basis of species. He believes this to be on the same level as sexism or racism. There are many different arguments to the morality of this:
Singer himself argues that whatever brings the greatest amount of good should be done, so some experiments can be justified if they bring great societal benefit. He still believes animal suffering should be taken into account, if this is greater than the benefits, the study should not be done. This is a utilitarian stance.
Dunayer argues that laws on animal experiments set the standard, but can still be immoral. He equates this to American laws on slavery.
Grey, however, argues that humans have a special duty of care towards humans, and human life is above animal life. Therefore, animal experiments are justified if they help humans, no matter the suffering.
Regan believes that no animal experimentation can ever be justified, as all are morally incorrect. This is an absolutist view.
Animal rights is a new concept, and is not universally acknowledged. Some believe that as animals have no responsibilities, or any laws, they do not have any rights.
This has been criticised, as children, elderly and people with some developmental disabilities equally have no responsibilities as they are unable to care for themselves. However, they still deserve rights.
Animals may also be sentient, meaning they can feel, think and experience emotions.
It can be argued they are not on the same level of sentience, therefore do not experience suffering on the same level as humans.
Some humans, such as those comatose or brain damaged, may also lack sentience, but again still deserve rights.
The Treaty of Lisbon declared that all animals are sentient.
Psychology is now widely considered a science by most within the subject, and at most major universities.
However, some within and outside of the subject disagree with it as a science, due to it’s subject matter - humans.
As a science, psychological claims must be backed up by research in order to be respected in society
This prevents people from making unfounded claims about human behaviour, without data or science.
This can help prevent discrimination by countering views, such as that ethnic group have a lower intelligence.
In the past, homosexuality was in the DSM as a mental illness or perversion, and once removed, society began to accept that homosexuality was normal.
It has been fully legalised in the UK, and other areas around the world.
Could be argued that psychology labelling it as a deviance may have begun the stigma, and thus it is partly to blame.
This shows the great effect that psychology can have within society, and it’s influence.
Another example is addiction. In the past, it was seen as a moral defect or personality flaw, the addict was seen as solely to blame.
Psychological research, however, showed that other factors could be attributed, such as biological, social and environmental roots.
This helped treatments move from punishments to rehab, allowing for more ethical treatments.
‘Common sense’ can not always be relied on within psychology, as proven by Milgram’s study.
Claims should always be studied before being made.
Disputing past claims can help us better understand ourselves in the present, and in the past.
Psychology is used within modern medicine, and needs to be empirical in a clinical context.
Treatments should undergo randomised control trials to see which is the best for each disorder.
This can help lower NHS costs, but also reduce waiting times and help people receive the best treatment possible.
Labelling psychology as a science can help society see mental illness on the same level as physical, and therefore alleviate some associated stigma.
Psychology has changed a lot since it’s beginnings, becoming more scientific over time.
Hippocrates in 400 BC credited human behaviour to the four humours, believing an excess or lack of any of these humours could cause depression and aggression. This idea persisted until the 19th century.
Wundt set up the first psychology lab, and trained students in introspection (observing and reporting thought processes).
While this can be considered approaching a scientific method, observations and self-reports are not objective, and therefore can have issues.
Freud used case studies and clinical interviews in an idiographic way, meaning his evidence cannot be used scientifically.
While not falsifiable, his theories of the unconscious mind and the effects of childhood had great benefits.
Watson can be considered the father of modern psychological science. He believed the focus should be on observable behaviour, as thoughts and feelings cannot be objectively understood.
This limits a lot of what psychology can explore, and is not agreed with currently.
Self-reports can be compared to a patient reporting pain, why do we only trust when the symptoms described are physical?
Triangulation is a method used to improve validity of findings. It involves using different methods of investigations and comparing the results.
For example, measuring a person’s physical responses such as heart rate, as well as asking how they feel.
This can allow an objective conclusion to be reached without worrying about objectivity and lack of nuance.
Peer review can also be used, by checking other psychologists work for observer bias.
This also prevents unscientific psychological research from being published, therefore causing harmful ideas to be spread.
Miller argued psychology is a pseudoscience, as it does not adhere to the key scientific principles.
This could be dangerous, as if psychological ideas are mistaken for facts they can be wrongfully used for things such as public policy.
Popper argued that observations are inherently biased, and therefore are not a good scientific method.
This is particularly true when the subject is human behaviour, but is true across all sciences.
Heather was dismissive of lab experiments, calling them artificial representations of human behaviour.
Field experiments can also be used, but incur many issues, such as ethics.
Maslow said that the uniqueness of humans doesn’t fit into the scientific method, and it is therefore a poor method of psychology.
He believed idiographic and less reductionist investigations were necessary.
Clinical psychology, and our understanding of mental illness, are greatly affected without reductionism. It is also a key scientific principle.
Rogers believed these methods were the only way to get the deepest insight into experiences.
This is extremely unreliable and non-generalisable data, making it unscientific.
While humanists would argue this is the point, this eliminates any overall understanding of human behaviour, and allows for understanding of only a few selective individuals.
Laing believed that scientific approaches ignore the individual experiences, pain and suffering of a patient of mental health conditions.
He argued that individuals can only be treated effectively as individuals.
While this is true in that not all psychological treatments work for all patients, without a guideline of what treatments are most effective, how can psychologists know where to start?
Approaches without psychology use different methodologies, and have different explanations for the same phenomena. Therefore, calling all psychology scientific is hard.
Biological and behaviourist approaches are quite scientific, looking at brain scans and observable behaviour, but suffer in understanding different aspects.
For example, behaviour can be influenced by behavioural and biological factors, something which neither approach addresses.
Cognitive psychology uses lab experiments, but have to make inferences on what people are actually thinking.
Positive and psychodynamic psychology are non-scientific and unreliable.
A gender bias is present in many psychological theories, due to studies that only study men and positive biases towards male researchers.
There have been many attempts to fix this using more female perspectives, gender balanced studies and understanding females contribution to science.
This is known as androcentrism - men are centred, and women exist only to be compared to men. Male norms are norms, and females norms are abnormal.
Wilkinson argued that women are excluded and their experiences are devalued by this comparison.
Additionally, research into differences between men and women could be classed as socially sensitive.
Kitzinger argued that these differences have been used to oppress women (asylums, limiting from higher education, etc).
Therefore this research is political.
This is the assumption that there are differences, and in the case of sexism, the assumption that men and women are fundamentally different.
An example of this is Freud’s theory of psychosexual development, which argued that women are morally inferior to men.
He believed that women not having a penis caused them to suffer from ‘penis envy.’
They also don’t suffer from an oedipus complex, and therefore cannot develop a superego.
Female behaviour is often pathologized, as it is seen as deviant compared to male behaviour.
Tavris used the example of PMS - women and men have mood swings, but only women’s are made into a syndrome.
There is no evidence women’s competence is linked to hormones, while there is evidence mens is.
Anti social behaviour is linked to high testosterone levels.
Tavris also argued female and male behaviours are attributed to different causes, men have issues with upbringing while women must have innate psychological issues.
This is the ignorance of genuine differences between groups, and in the case of sexism, between men and women.
This can occur when there is no women in an experiment, as their results cannot be compared and so the male result is considered the norm.
An example of this is Kohlberg’s theory, which was applied to both men and women and led him to conclude women did not have higher reasoning.
Gilligan argued that women used care principles over justice in moral decisions, therefore his research devalued female perspectives.
Additionally, male animals are preferred as subjects due to their estrous cycles, meaning gender bias may even exist in animal studies.
There is few genuine, consistent differences. A systematic review by Maccoby and Jacklin concluded there was 4 differences that had strong evidence:
Girls have a greater verbal ability.
Boys have better visual and spatial abilities.
Boys have better math ability, but only in adolescence.
Girls are less aggressive, this is present across cultures from around 2 years of age.
Another issue with this is whether this is due to culture or biology.
From a young age, male and female children are treated differently.
Male toys are based around science, while female toys are based around domestic chores.
Additionally Rosenthal found that researchers treated female participants different, being more encouraging, honest and friendly.
This may mean that gender differences present in studies may be caused by the way they are treated.
‘Male and female subjects may, psychologically, simply not be in the same experiment at all‘
Non-heterosexual orientations/relationships (homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, aromantics, etc) have been largely ignored, both in research and media.
This is likely due to the stigma around homosexuals, such as criminalisation and view of it as a mental illness.
This means studies into relationships, such as satisfaction and happiness studies, have results that only relate to heterosexuals but are generalised to both.
A liberal humanism approach, which views that homosexuals are diverse, natural and unthreatening to heterosexuality has helped change attitudes.
Alpha bias
Research comparing these two groups could be labelled as socially sensitive, as negative results could change attitudes against homosexuals.
Additionally, homosexuals may suffer more from social desirability bias as they may want to boost positive attitudes towards them.
These studies often have methodology issues. Due to the only recent legalisation of gay marriage, many older studies compare married heterosexuals to cohabiting homosexuals, which causes them to lack validity.
Blumstein and Schwartz compared couples that had been together more than 10 years, finding that 22% of wives, 30% of husbands, 43% of lesbians and 94% of gay men had slept with a different person to their partner.
This research did not consider alternative explanations to cheating, such as polyamory.
Beta bias
Buss’s cross-cultural research into attraction found that men prefer younger, more fertile women and women prefer older, harder-working men.
He attributed this to evolution, as they are both looking for the best characteristics for child-rearing.
However, homosexuals cannot have children through traditional means, and therefore cannot look for these traits in a mate. Additionally, men looking for the same traits in each other would not cater to a child.
There is a lack of research into what gay people are attracted to, but also bisexuals, asexuals and polyamorous people.
Similarities
Most research points to these relationships being quite similar:
Kurdek and Schmitt compared love and liking across four groups, cohbaiting heterosexuals, married heterosexuals, gay couples and lesbians couples.
He found that all groups rated a similar level of love, and heterosexual cohabitors reported a lower level of liking.
Peplau found that homosexual and heterosexual relationships last longer if they have similar backgrounds and similar commitment levels.
Therefore, similar factors influence relationship success in hetero and homosexual relationships.
Throughout history, women have been devalued and seen as lesser to men in intelligence and strength.
These attitudes are still prevalent in society today, although they are less aggressive, and past studies are still used.
Currently, studies must address if differences between men and women are culturally or biologically caused, instead of assuming biology.
Past harmful beliefs
Using androcentrism as the standard, most studies in the past were conducted on men, and women were either assumed to be the same or lesser.
Many men believed women inherently wanted to be mothers and wives, and didn’t not wish to seek intelligence.
Bowlby’s research into maternal deprivation focused only on how women affect children, and cannot be generalised to non-traditional relationships of the present (single parents, non-married parents, gay parents, polyamorous parents, adopted children, etc).
The Stanford-Binet test, which gives a mental age of participants, was designed for men but used on women.
Women also had less education at this time.
This led to Virginia forcibly sterilising 7,500 women between 1924-1972. They targeting unwed mothers, prostitutes and those ‘feeble-minded‘. This meant women were targeting to not adhering to social norms.
Feminist psychology
This sect aimed to address sexism within psychology, and has no clear definition, but aims to:
Focus on more women psychologists.
Research women better.
Have equal male and female participants in studies.
Recognise the gender bias present in psychology.
Wilkinson listed three major improvements it could bring:
Identification of unrecognised bias.
Increase in critical thinking.
Broadening research by looking at under researched areas such as women’s struggles and generation of new outlooks to old issues.
Social construct
There has been evidence to show sexism exists from infancy to adulthood:
Mondschein et al asked mothers to predict how successful their babies would be at crawling, and while there was no actual difference, mothers had lower expectations for girls.
Smith and Lloyd found that mothers would select toys based on gender; dolls for girls and hammers for boys. They also responded more actively when boys showed increased motor activity.
The gender of the babies was randomised, but they would be dressed in boy/girl clothes and given a boy/girl name to alleviate the possibility of innate preferences.
Psychological studies are assumed to be done by men, due to only the surname being shown.
This is due to psychology’s masculinist bias, publishing male achievements and downplaying females.
Early in psychology, women could not attend courses and had PhDs refused.
Areas in which women are interested are often undervalued:
Psychology is around 50% female undergraduates and is often devalued as a science.
‘Female‘ areas of psychology, such as counselling, developmental and educational psychology are seen as less scientific.
This could due to women being more likely to pick these specialities, or even that women are ‘channelled‘ into these areas.
Culture is defined as groups of people that may differ in terms of norms, behaviours, practices, language, values beliefs, background, location, etc.
Even within main cultures, there is often subcultures. These could be based on gender, sexuality, race, age, etc.
Cultural bias is judging other cultures based off your own culture. This could be:
Theories applied to all cultures that only relate to one.
Participants only being from one culture - WEIRD.
This could be appropriate in certain examples, such as animal studies or studies that focus on one culture.
This is a specific technique within psychology - a natural study.
This aims to investigate the effects of various cultural practices on human behaviour.
They can also be used to see whether certain behaviour is innate to humans or environmentally caused (nature versus nurture).
If it reappears across cultures, it is likely innate.
Advantages:
Cross cultural studies help us understand innate behaviour.
They help us understand what is environmental, for example in the West schizophrenia symptoms involve harmful voices, and comforting in other parts of the world.
Disadvantages:
Psychologists may misunderstand cultures different from their own due to their own socialisation - observer bias.
For example, in Nigeria a common symptom of depression is a feeling of crawling on the skin, which could be misinterpreted as psychosis.
Tools used by psychologists may also be biased towards Western viewpoints. An example of this is intelligence tests.
The use of tests that were devised in one culture but used on another is known as imposed etic.
An example is Cole et al. which asked members of the Kpelle tribe in Africa to sort objects into groups.
They sorted items into functional groups (knife with an orange) instead of into categories (orange with an apple) as Western people would likely do.
Therefore, intelligent behaviour varies over cultures.
An example of a test with imposed etic is Kohlberg’s, as the moral scenarios were designed from a Western viewpoint and he concluded that children in Mexico and Taiwan developed slower.
This may have been due to children not understanding the proposed dilemmas.
Additionally, different cultures have different values, so can these stages be generalisable? (Individualism versus collectivism).
Additionally, this can ignore subcultures.
Vandello and Cohen found that those across America had different values; those in the Mountain West were more individualist and those in the Deep South were more collectivist.
When differences are found via cross cultural studies, it must then be determined if this is genuine or due to methodological issues.
For example, Harris investigated the role of love in 42 hunter gatherer societies.
He found 26 had romantic love, but only 6 had complete freedom to choose a marriage partner, and others had arranged marriages or the parents had the right to oppose.
This would suggest the notion of romantic love is not universal.
However, these results could be attributed to language barriers or understanding of love.
This is the view that one culture is superior and should be used to judge others.
Therefore, all other cultures are strange and worse.
A common type of this within psychology is Eurocentrism, where the focus is on Western values. Many theories within psychology reflect this bias.
Cultural relativism is the opposite, the idea that all cultures are worthy of respect and should be fully understood before studying.
Yet, this could cause an assumption of differences, but also an ignorance of differences that may be harmful.
Alpha bias
The assumption there are differences between groups, in the case of culture that cultures must act differently.
This can be harmful as there are some similarities between cultures in terms of mental illness symptomatology. Understanding universal symptoms could help determine biological and social causes.
Furthermore, Trandis et al. found that only 60% of people conform to dominant cultures, so not all people across cultures are different.
For example, some people in individualist societies may still hold collectivist values.
Beta bias
The assumption there are no differences between groups, in the case of cultures that all cultures are the same.
This could lead to assumptions that definitions are always the same. For example, Harris may have used a Western idea of romantic love and therefore misunderstood different cultures.
This also leads to theories being wrongfully generalised across cultures.
Amir and Sharon attempted to repeat 6 American studies on the Israeli population. Of 64 significant findings, only 24 were repeated and 6 new findings were obtained.
Psychology has been an exclusively Western subject for many years.
Rosenzweig found that 64% of the world’s psychologists are American.
Smith and Bond found that 66% of studies in psychology textbooks are American, 32% are European and 2% are from the rest of the world.
Furthermore, cultures change over time, especially as Western values become more universal.
Westen compared views from the 19th Century (quoted by a doctor, Mosher) about their sex lives. Those born in the middle of the century described it as vital for reproduction but not pleasurable. Those born towards the end described it in more positive terms, linking it to passionate love.
Time periods could therefore be seen as different cultures.
Another example is Bowlby’s study, which refers to 1950s cultural expectations of child care. These centred women as primary caregivers and often did not focus on emotional wellbeing.
This study could not be generalised to modern times due to this.
Therefore, older studies may lack temporal/historical validity.
While it still remains an issue, there have been attempts to mitigate cultural bias:
Encouragement of indigenous psychologists to carry out research on their own cultures, as they may grasp nuances outsiders do not.
An example is Afrocentrism, which focuses on values such as oneness with nature and survival of the tribe, over Eurocentrism’s focus on survival of the fittest and control over nature.
