Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ETHICAL ISSUES ACROSS PSYCHOLOGY - Coggle Diagram
ETHICAL ISSUES ACROSS PSYCHOLOGY
Ethics
WATSON AND RAYNER
SHERRIF
Not ethical - Ethical issues include a lack of consent from the boys as they were not aware that they were part of a study. This has implications for the right to withdraw.
Competing argument - Parents did consent for the boys to take part in the study.
Not ethical - exposing youngsters to situations which create hostility can be considered unethical
Competing argument - The names of the boys were not used. Therefore, the ethical guidelines of privacy and confidentiality were kept.
Not ethical - However, use of deception may be problematic e.g. use of hidden cameras. That said, the use of deception led to improved validity. If the boys were aware that they were being studied their behaviour would no longer be natural. This can be seen as the benefits outweighing the costs.
Not ethical - Little Albert was put through uncomfortable trials which to establish his conditioned response of fear. This may have breached the guideline of the right to withdraw Furthermore, ethical guidelines were not established at the time of this study, and so Albert was clearly not protected from harm
Conclusion
In conclusion, Watson & Rayner's study can be seen as invalid as it turned out that Albert died when he was 6. Albert could therefore have been unwell at the time of the study, which would add to his distress and make him unrepresentative of the wider population. Furthermore, since Little Albert was an infant, it could be questioned whether the findings of this study would apply to older individuals. Therefore, it could be said that the ethical costs of this research did not outweigh the benefits.
Could be considered justifiable because the research findings provided the foundations of treatments
of phobias, such as systematic desensitisation. Therefore, the societal-benefits may outweigh the ethical costs.
Ethical - his confidentiality was protected as his real name was never revealed
RAINE
Ethical - Participants in the study were all adults and were fully informed about the nature of the study. They were given the opportunity to ask questions and could withdraw at any time.
Competing argument - However, it could be argued that due to their mental health conditions, they may not have been fully capable of understanding the implications of the study.
Ethical - Protection from Harm- The researchers took steps to ensure that the participants were not physically harmed during the PET scans.
Competing argument - The labelling of participants as 'murderers' could potentially lead to psychological harm, such as stigmatization and self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ethical - There was no deception involved in this study. Participants were fully aware of the purpose and procedures of the study.
Ethical - Right to Withdraw - Participants were informed that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences.
ROSENHAN
Not ethical - The hospital staff were deceived about the pseudo patients' symptoms and they did not know they were in a study so they were unable to give consent. Lack of consent
Competing argument- However, Rosenhan did protect the anonymity of the staff and hospital afterwards. - protection from harm