Week 1.1 - Social Psychology — Ethical & Methodological Challenges

Human Element in Science

  • Social psychology conducted by humans, not perfectly rational entities

Defining “Problematic”

  • Controversial: open to debate

  • Challenging: difficult to address

  • Ethically questionable: may breach accepted standards

  • Harmful: risks physical or psychological damage

Problematic Methods

  • Historical use of:

    • Shock and extreme stress

    • Systematic deception

    • Withholding beneficial treatment

    • Restricting participants’ liberty

Classic Cases

  • Milgram Obedience (1961!\text{--}!1963): deception, severe distress

  • Stanford Prison (1971): lack of consent, psychological harm

Problematic People

  • Documented misconduct among prominent scholars:

    • Data fabrication & plagiarism

    • Grant misappropriation

    • Career sabotage

    • Sexual misconduct

Case: Henri Tajfel

  • Pioneer of Social Identity Theory (in-group / out-group)

  • Early studies used deception without consent

  • Multiple reports of misogyny and harassment (e.g., 9 of 10 colleagues, Young & Hegarty 2019)

  • Name removed from EASP lifetime award amid “due-process” debate

  • Ongoing discussion: separate scientific contribution from moral failings

Replication Crisis

  • Spotlight since 2010s; large-scale failures to reproduce findings

  • Open Science Collaboration 2015: only 37\% of 100 studies replicated

  • Multisite review: 75\% failed to confirm originals

  • Result: “crisis of confidence” in social psychology

Methodological Reforms

  • Pre-registration & Registered Reports

  • Emphasis on effect sizes, advanced stats, sensitivity & multiverse analyses

  • Multi-study papers with internal replications; global collaborations

  • Ongoing multisite projects

Mixed Outcomes

  • Example: Protzko et al. 2023 claim “high replicability”; paper under editorial scrutiny for prereg issues

Contextual View & Debate

  • Behaviour varies across time, culture, population—limits universal claims (WEIRD bias)

  • Some argue replication failures are expected and not catastrophic

  • Critique: senior, established (often white, male) scholars defend legacy vs. reform

  • Pettigrew 2018: crisis “overblown”; continue applied work regardless

Key Takeaways

  • Ethical lapses and replication issues underscore need for rigorous, transparent methods

  • Reforms improving credibility but debates persist on severity and cultural scope

  • Balancing acknowledgment of scientific contributions with accountability for misconduct remains essential