Issues and Debates in Psychology (A-Level Revision)

Gender and Culture

In psychology, when we talk about universality, we are referring to the idea that a theory or a finding can be applied to all people, regardless of their culture or gender.

It’s the belief that some behaviours are the same for all cultures.

However, if a hypothesis is not tested on a diverse sample, any claim of universality remains an assumption and may not be generalisable to the wider population.

Bias, on the other hand, suggests that a person’s views are distorted in some way. In psychology, bias occurs when a researcher’s pre-existing beliefs, personal experiences, cultural background, or gender-related experiences influence their theories and the interpretation of data.

This can lead to an invalid understanding of human behaviour that is based on the researcher’s misconceptions rather than objective data.

Gender Bias

Gender bias including androcentrism and alpha and beta bias.

AO1

Gender bias is the differential treatment or representation of males and females based on stereotypes rather than actual evidenced differences.

Psychological theory and research are at risk of either exaggerating the differences between males and females or completely ignoring them.

This can lead to distorted or inaccurate understandings of human behaviour, often reinforcing harmful stereotypes and marginalising one gender.

Avoiding gender bias does not mean pretending that men and women are the same.

There are three main types of gender bias:

1. Androcentrism: This is the tendency to be centred on, or dominated by, males or the male viewpoint. It is a bias where male behaviour and masculine traits are judged to be the norm, acceptable, or desirable, while female behaviour or feminine traits are viewed as deviant, less acceptable, or abnormal. This bias often arises because historically, most psychologists who developed these theories were male, leading their work to reflect a male perspective on the world.
2. Alpha Bias: This occurs when theories or research exaggerate the differences between males and females. Stereotypically male and female characteristics may be emphasised.
3. Beta Bias: This happens when theories or research minimise or ignore the differences between males and females. Findings from research on males are often assumed to apply equally to females, or vice versa.

Examples of Gender Bias in Research (AO3)

Gender Bias in the Research Process (AO3)

Gender bias can also appear in the research process itself:

• Historically, research predominantly used male samples.
• Researchers may hold different expectations for men and women, influencing outcomes.
• Male experimenters have been found to be more pleasant to female participants.
• Standardised procedures can disadvantage women or mask real differences by assuming men and women respond identically.
• There might be less investigation into topics primarily relevant to women due to male dominance at senior research levels.
• Research finding gender differences may be more likely to be published, exaggerating the extent of these differences.

Reducing Gender Bias in Psychology (AO3)

Equal opportunity legislation and feminist psychology have performed the valuable functions of reducing institutionalised gender bias and drawing attention to sources of bias and under-researched areas in psychology like childcare, sexual abuse, dual burden working, and prostitution.

• Recognising Bias: Issues of gender bias have historically gone unnoticed, but an increased understanding is helping to reduce it.
• Diverse Samples: Researchers should avoid extrapolating findings from research with male participants to females (or vice versa) and instead use both male and female participants in research.
• Researcher Reflexivity: Psychologists should take a reflexive approach, constantly reflecting on their own gender biases when carrying out research.
• Challenging Assumptions: The “feminist perspective” in psychology aims to re-examine “facts” about gender, view women as normal humans (not “deficient men”), be sceptical towards biological determinism, and focus the research agenda on women’s concerns.
• Publication Practices: To reduce alpha bias, a change is needed in the publication of results. There is a historical bias towards publishing positive results (those finding gender differences), which can exaggerate these differences. Publishing studies that do not find gender differences can help.
• Terminology: Replacing terms like “gender identity disorder” with “gender dysphoria” (or “gender incongruence”) is a positive change, as the new terminology is more affirmative and destigmatising. The old terms framed gender diversity as a deviation from the norm, whereas updated language acknowledges the experience without suggesting abnormality or pathology.

Learning Check AO2

This activity will help you to:

• Identify gender biases in psychological theories
• Discuss the impact of biased research on society
• Critically assess gender-biased theories

Below are two examples of research that could be considered gender biased. Working in pairs or small groups, you need to do the following:

1. Identify aspects of the research that could be considered gender biased
2. Identify and explain the type of gender bias that is present
3. Suggest the impact that these research examples could have on society

You could look, for example, at how the research might uphold or reinforce gender stereotypes or be used to disempower women in society.

Cultural bias in psychology refers to the tendency to interpret and judge human behaviour based on the values and beliefs of one’s own society and culture.

This can sometimes lead to forming views about the behaviour of others without any actual experience with them.

It’s a significant issue because psychology, as a discipline, predominantly evolved within a specific cultural context, mainly being a “white, Euro-American enterprise”.

Consequently, psychological theories and research have often incorporated a particular worldview – that of the industrialised West – into how they understand people.

Cultural bias can manifest in a few ways, including:

• Alpha Bias occurs when a theory or research in psychology assumes cultural groups are profoundly different.
• Beta Bias occurs when real cultural differences are ignored or minimised, often seen in universal research designs that assume all cultures are the same.

A common criticism is that the majority of psychological research is based on participants from “WEIRD” societies (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic).

For example, 68% of participants in published psychology studies came from the USA, and 96% were from Western industrialised nations like North America, Europe, and Australia.

This raises questions about the generalisability of findings to the wider global population, as members of WEIRD societies may be among the least representative for generalising about humans.

If findings from these limited samples are wrongly assumed to reflect universal human behaviour, it can lead to the behaviour of people from non-Westernised, less educated, agricultural, and poorer cultures being seen as abnormal, simply because one culture is being used as the standard by which others are judged.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is a form of cultural bias where a researcher views the world from their own cultural perspective, believing it to be correct and often superior.

It involves judging one’s own culture as the standard by which other cultures are evaluated.

When other cultures are observed to differ from the researcher’s own, they might be regarded negatively, for example, as ‘primitive’ or ‘undeveloped’.

This bias can occur due to a lack of awareness that other ways of seeing things can be as valid as one’s own. When the cultural norms of one culture are assumed to be true for another, this is usually known as an imposed etic.

Here are some examples of ethnocentrism in psychological research:

1. Diagnosis of Schizophrenia: There is a tendency to over-diagnose members of other cultures with schizophrenia. For instance, research by Cochrane (1977) found that while the incidence of schizophrenia in the West Indies and Britain was similar (around 1%), people of Afro-Caribbean origin were 7 times more likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia when living in Britain.
   
   This higher diagnosis rate is not due to genetic vulnerability but may be a result of cultural bias. In Afro-Caribbean cultures, spiritual practices, including hearing voices, are part of their culture and are typical behaviours. However, Western diagnostic frameworks often misinterpret this as a hallucination and a sign of mental illness.
   
   This highlights a “category failure” where Western definitions of mental illness are applied to non-Westerners. Clinician bias, stemming from unconscious stereotypes, can also contribute to misdiagnosis.
2. Attachment Studies (Ainsworth’s Strange Situation): The Strange Situation procedure, developed by an American researcher (Ainsworth) based on a British theory (Bowlby’s), is often criticised for being an ethnocentric procedure.
   
   It was designed in America, based on American norms, and assumed that separation distress is fundamental to a secure attachment. When used in other cultures, it can lead to bias and misinterpretations.
   • For example, Takahashi (1990) found that in a Japanese replication, researchers had to stop the study for 90% of children because of extreme anxiety when left alone, as this was very unnatural for them due to different child-rearing practices where mothers rarely separate from their infants. This meant Japanese children were often classified as insecure-resistant, whereas German infants (encouraged to be independent) were often insecure-avoidant.
   • Secure attachment is argued to be the “best” type, but it’s far more common in individualistic Western cultures (e.g., 75% in UK sample) compared to collectivist cultures (e.g., 50% in Chinese sample). The assumption that secure attachment, as defined by the Strange Situation, is universally ideal is an ethnocentric view.
3. IQ Testing: IQ tests developed in the West often contain embedded assumptions about intelligence that may not be universally applicable. This can disadvantage non-Westerners, leading to them being viewed as ‘inferior’ when they don’t perform as Westerners do.
   
   Historically, these tests, which were culturally biased, were misused to rank recruits and promote white superiority, even justifying forced sterilisation in the US in the 1920s and 1930s to prevent ‘feeble-minded’ individuals from reproducing.
4. Humanistic Approach: Many central ideas of humanistic psychology, such as individual freedom, autonomy, and personal growth (like self-actualisation and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), are strongly associated with individualistic Western cultures, particularly the United States.
   
   Collectivist cultures, such as India or Japan, which emphasise group needs, community, and interdependence, may not identify as easily with these ideals. This suggests the approach might not “travel well” and is a product of its cultural context.
5. Defining Abnormality (Deviation from Social Norms and Ideal Mental Health): Definitions of abnormality vary from culture to culture. What is considered abnormal in one culture may be normal in another. For example, the criteria for ‘ideal mental health’ are based on a Western, individualistic culture, which values personal achievement and autonomy.
   
   These criteria may not be appropriate to judge individuals from collectivist cultures, where group identity and achievement are prioritised. This makes such definitions culturally relative and potentially ethnocentric.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is the principle that behaviour can only be properly understood if its cultural context is taken into consideration.

It suggests that social norms are culturally relative, and the context is vital in understanding human behaviour. Cultural relativism is essentially the rejection of the idea that behaviours are universal.

It is considered the antidote to ethnocentrism, aiming to avoid cultural bias in research and judging other cultures by one’s own standards.

Examples where cultural relativism is crucial:

• Attachment: Attachment type can only be understood if the child-rearing and parenting styles of that culture are taken into account. Different cultural practices, such as Germany’s emphasis on independence or Japan’s focus on dependence, can explain variations in attachment patterns.
• Psychological Disorders: Psychological disorders are greatly affected by culture. For instance, anxiety disorders are influenced by culture in terms of what situations or objects are likely to cause fear. Some anxiety disorders are specific to cultures, such as a Japanese syndrome for fearing upsetting others (taijin kyofusho), which would be classified as a social phobia in the UK. This demonstrates how psychological illness is relative to culture.
• Gender Roles: Cross-cultural studies help determine whether biology or socialisation primarily influences gender roles. If gender roles were the same in every culture, it would suggest a biological basis; however, if they differ across cultures, it points to socialisation as a key factor. Mead’s research, for example, showed how gender roles varied radically across tribal communities, suggesting they are a product of culture rather than biology. Social learning theory, by acknowledging the environment’s chief influence on behaviour, has the advantage of being able to explain cultural differences in behaviour.

While cultural relativism highlights the importance of context, it doesn’t mean that all practices or beliefs are equally valid or beneficial from a psychological standpoint; rather, it’s about understanding and respecting cultural differences.

However, some aspects of human behaviour may indeed be universal, such as basic facial expressions for emotions like happiness, anger, and fear, which Paul Ekman (1972) found are recognised across various cultures, including isolated communities.

Reducing Cultural Bias in Research

Recognising and addressing cultural bias is crucial for improving psychological research. Here are some ways researchers can reduce cultural bias:

1. Diverse Sampling: Researchers should sample different cultural groups instead of relying heavily on “WEIRD” participants. This allows findings to be more representative and generalisable to a wider population.
2. Cross-Cultural Research: Conducting cross-cultural research is vital, where findings from one culture are compared to replications across multiple cultures, like Van Ijzendoorn’s meta-analysis of the Strange Situation. This helps in identifying whether behaviours are universal or culturally specific.
3. Indigenous Psychology: Encouraging indigenous psychology, where research is conducted by individuals native to or deeply familiar with the culture being investigated, can help to limit ethnocentrism. This ensures that local “emics” (constructs specific to a single culture) are understood and not misinterpreted by researchers from other cultures.
4. Avoid Universal Assumptions: Do not automatically assume universal norms, standards, or differences across cultures. Claims of universality or difference should be based on diverse data, not assumptions.
5. Sensitive Research Design and Reporting: Researchers should be sensitive to cultural norms and standards when designing studies and reporting findings. This involves carefully formulating research questions to avoid biased assumptions and presenting findings in a value-free way, anticipating potential misuse.
6. Reflexivity: Researchers should adopt a reflexive approach, actively reflecting on their own beliefs, values, and experiences. This self-awareness helps in recognising how personal factors, such as stereotypes, might influence the research process or the interpretation of participant behaviour.

By implementing these strategies, psychology can move towards a more accurate and culturally sensitive understanding of human behaviour, rather than amplifying damaging stereotypes or validating discrimination.

Free Will & Determinism

The free will vs. determinism debate revolves around the extent to which our behaviour is the result of forces over which we have no control or whether people are able to decide for themselves whether to act or behave in a certain way.

Free Will

AO1

Free will suggests that we all have an active choice and can control and choose our own behaviour.

It suggests that human behaviour is self-determined, meaning people can choose their thoughts and actions and therefore have control over their behaviour.

This approach is all about personal responsibility and plays a central role in Humanist Psychology.

A belief in free will doesn’t necessarily deny that internal and external forces contribute to behaviour, but it posits that ultimately, humans have a choice over how to behave in response to these influences.

It refers to the ability to act at one’s own discretion, choosing to behave without being completely influenced by external forces

AO1

Determinism is the view that free will is an illusion and that our behaviour is governed by internal or external forces over which we have no control.

According to this view, behaviour is predictable because it always has a cause.

A basic principle of science is that all events have a cause (causal explanations), and knowledge of these causes allows scientists to predict behaviour.

Deterministic explanations suggest that individuals are not solely responsible for their actions, which can have implications for legal systems and societal views on accountability.

Nature & Nurture

The nature-nurture debate: the relative importance of heredity and environment in determining behaviour; the interactionist approach.

The Nature-Nurture Debate is a core discussion in psychology that centres on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance (nature) and environmental influences (nurture) to human behaviour.

Rather than choosing one over the other, most psychologists today recognise that both factors are crucial and adopt an interactionist approach.

Nature

AO1

Nature refers to the view that behaviour is a product of genetic or innate biological factors.

This perspective is often called the nativist position, assuming that human characteristics are a result of evolution and individual differences stem from a person’s unique genetic code.

Key concepts associated with nature include:

• Heredity: The process by which physical and psychological traits are genetically passed down from one generation to the next. Characteristics like height, weight, hair loss, and vulnerability to specific illnesses are positively correlated with genetic relatedness.
• Innate Biological Factors: The view that certain characteristics are “wired in” before we are born. This includes the influence of genes, biological structures, and neurochemistry on behaviour.
• Genotype and Phenotype: Genotype is the genetic makeup of an organism, the inherited information within genes that determines traits. Phenotype is the visible or observable expression of genes, which is also influenced by the environment. You can determine genotype through biological tests, but phenotype can be observed directly.
• Maturation: Characteristics that are not observable at birth but emerge later in life are regarded by nativists as the product of maturation, following a pre-programmed “biological clock”.
• Evolution: The view that characteristics of the human species are a product of evolution. Genetically determined characteristics or behaviours that enhance survival and reproduction are passed on through natural selection.

Approaches and examples that lean towards the nature side include:

• Biological Approach: This approach fundamentally assumes that everything psychological is first biological, asserting that behaviour is determined by biological factors such as genes, biological structures, and neurochemistry. It proposes that psychological traits like intelligence and mental illness can be inherited, similar to physical traits.
• Evolution and Behaviour: Drawing on Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, characteristics or behaviours that enhance survival and reproduction are passed on to future generations and become more common in a population.
  • Attachment: Bowlby proposed that children are biologically programmed to form attachments for survival, suggesting these behaviours are naturally selected and passed on through genetic inheritance.
  • Aggression: Evolutionary theory suggests aggression in humans has survival advantages, leading to traits like aggression and risk-taking being passed on, especially in males who compete for mates. However, critics argue this can be deterministic and used to justify violence.
•  
• Psychodynamic Approach (partially): While complex, the psychodynamic approach includes innate drives, such as the Id, which represents basic biological instincts. Freud’s psychosexual stages of development are seen as biologically driven innate processes that all children experience around the same age.
• Humanistic Approach (partially): This approach acknowledges biological drives and needs, such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as innate aspects of human nature.

AO1

Nurture is the view that behaviour is a product of environmental influences. The environment is considered everything outside the body, including people, events, and the physical world.

Environmentalists, also known as empiricists, believe the human mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth, which is gradually “filled” through experience. This view was first proposed by John Locke.

Key concepts associated with nurture include:

• Environment: Any influence on human behaviour that is not genetic. This includes everything outside the body, from the environment in the womb to cultural and historical influences, people, events, and the physical world.
• Tabula Rasa: The assumption held by environmentalists that the human mind is a blank slate at birth, which is gradually “filled” through experience. This view was influenced by empirical philosophy.
• Learning: Psychological characteristics and behavioural differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are seen as the result of learning. This includes learning through conditioning (classical and operant conditioning) and socialisation.

Approaches that lean towards the nurture side include:

• Behaviourist Approach: This approach is a strong advocate for nurture, asserting that all behaviour is learned from the environment through conditioning.
  • Classical Conditioning: Learning through association (e.g., Pavlov’s dogs, Little Albert’s fear of white fluffy objects).
  • Operant Conditioning: Learning through consequences (reinforcement and punishment).
  • Attachment: Behaviourists explain attachment as a result of classical conditioning (food associated with mother) and operant conditioning (mother relieves discomfort, reinforcing proximity seeking). However, studies like Harlow’s monkeys and Schaffer and Emerson’s research contradict the idea of food as the primary factor.
• Social Learning Theory (SLT): This theory, an extension of behaviourism, emphasises that behaviour is learned through observation and imitation of others, alongside direct and indirect reinforcement. It also incorporates mediational processes (attention, retention, reproduction, motivation), acknowledging a role for cognitive factors, which makes it less purely deterministic than radical behaviourism.
  • Gender Development: SLT explains gender identity and roles as learned behaviours, influenced by differential treatment from parents and observation of role models, including those in media and culture. However, universal gender differences suggest biological influences SLT doesn’t account for.
• Cognitive Approach (partially): While acknowledging some innate brain capacities (nature), the cognitive approach strongly emphasises that mental processes like schemas are formed through learning and experience (nurture). It focuses on how past experiences influence information processing.
• Psychodynamic Approach (partially): While acknowledging innate drives (Id), the psychodynamic approach emphasizes that childhood experiences and unconscious conflicts significantly shape personality and behaviour. Fixations at psychosexual stages due to unresolved conflicts lead to behaviours carried into adulthood.

Reductionism & Holism

Holism and reductionism: levels of explanation in Psychology. Biological reductionism and environmental (stimulus-response) reductionism.

The debate between holism and reductionism in psychology is concerned with whether it is best to understand the complexity of human behaviour by reducing it to its simplest structures or parts, or to view human behaviour as a whole integrated experience.

Holism

AO1

Holism is often referred to as Gestalt psychology. It argues that behaviour cannot be understood in terms of the components that make them up. This is commonly described as ‘the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.’

Psychologists study the whole person to gain an understanding of all the factors that might influence behaviour. Holism uses several levels of explanation, including biological, environmental, and social factors.

Holistic approaches include Humanism, Social, and Gestalt psychology and make use of the case study method. Jahoda’s six elements of Optimal Living are an example of a holistic approach to defining abnormality.

Imagine you were asked to make a cake.

If I simply told you that you needed 3 eggs, 75 grams of sugar, and 75 grams of self-raising.
Would that be enough information for you to make a sponge cake? What else would you need to know?

In this way, a cake is more than the sum of its parts. Simply putting all the ingredients into a tin and sticking them in the oven would not result in a sponge cake!

Examples (AO3)

• Humanistic Psychology: Humanists advocate for holism, arguing that subjective experience can only be understood by considering the whole person. They believe that to understand a person, one must focus on all aspects of their life, as explaining human behaviour in a reductionist way would dehumanize them.
  
  Humanistic psychologists use qualitative methods like case studies, diaries, and unstructured interviews to support their holistic investigations, aiming for a rich, in-depth understanding of individuals. They consider multiple factors interacting, such as environment, relationships, and emotions.
• Gestalt Psychology: Developed in the 1920s and 1930s, Gestalt psychology promotes the idea that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” and explores how we perceive something as a whole rather than a collection of pieces.

AO1

Reductionism is the view that human behaviour can be explained by breaking it down into simpler component parts.

It is based on the scientific assumption of parsimony, which means that all phenomena should be explained in the simplest terms possible, often referred to as Occam’s Razor.

This approach suggests that behaviour as a whole is best understood by exploring the parts contributing to the system.

Levels of Explanation

Rose (1976) proposed that there are different levels of explanation in psychology. These levels arrange explanations from the most fundamental or basic components to more holistic, multi-variable levels.

• Lowest Level (Reductionist): This level includes biological explanations, where behaviour is explained in its smallest parts, such as genetics, neurochemicals, and biological structures. Explanations at this level are considered reductionist. For example, explaining OCD by the level of serotonin in the brain is a lower biological level explanation.
• Middle Level: These explanations reduce behaviour to psychological explanations, such as cognitive and behavioural processes. For instance, at the middle psychological level, one might consider the obsessive irrational thoughts experienced by someone with OCD and how that makes them feel. Machine reductionism (comparing the mind to a computer) is considered a mid-level in psychology. Environmental reductionism is also seen as a less extreme form of reductionism.
• Highest Level (More Holistic): This level considers both social and cultural explanations, where behaviour is explained in terms of the influence of social groups. For example, at the higher cultural and social level, one could consider how OCD is affecting an individual’s social relationships. Holism is generally considered the highest level of explanation, taking into account all aspects of a person’s behaviour and experience.

Any behaviour can be explained using these levels.

For example, memory can be explained through cultural factors (schemas affecting recall), psychological models (Multi-store model), and biological factors (hippocampus involvement).

Schizophrenia can be understood at a basic physiological level (dopamine action) versus a social-psychological level (family dysfunction and expressed emotion).

Obedience can be explained by the nervous system or by social-psychological factors like situational pressure.

Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

The debate considers whether it is more important to establish norms and similarities across groups (nomothetic) or to study the individual seeing them as unique (idiographic).

Nomothetic Approach

AO1

The Nomothetic approach looks at how our behaviours are similar to each other as human beings. The term “nomothetic” comes from the Greek word “nomos,” meaning “law.”

Psychologists who adopt this approach are concerned with establishing general laws of behaviour based on the study of large groups of participants.

Research Methods & Data:

Nomothetic approaches use quantitative data collection and statistical analysis.

This involves numerical and countable data focused on measuring quantity rather than quality. Common methods include:

• Experiments: Such as laboratory experiments, which are highly controlled and aim to establish cause-and-effect relationships.
• Correlations: Analysis of relationships between co-variables.
• Meta-analysis: Combining results from multiple studies to identify overall trends.
• Structured observations: Recording specific, measurable behaviours in large samples.

Associated Approaches and Examples:

• Biological Approach: Adopts scientific methods to identify trends and generate causal laws, often explaining psychological disorders (like OCD or schizophrenia) through biological factors that tend to be responsible for them. It uses techniques like fMRIs, EEGs, twin studies, and drug trials.
• Behaviourist Approach: Researchers like Watson, Pavlov, and Skinner conducted studies (often on animals in controlled environments like the Skinner box) to establish general laws of learning, such as classical and operant conditioning, which are then generalised to humans.
• Cognitive Approach: Focuses on establishing theories of information processing that apply to all people, using theoretical and computer models (e.g., Multi-Store Model of Memory). While it also uses case studies for insights (like HM, Clive Wearing), its primary aim is nomothetic.
• Social Psychology: Psychologists like Asch and Milgram adopted a nomothetic approach to understand conformity and obedience, concluding that situational factors influence these behaviours in all individuals.
• Personality Theories: Nomothetic approaches in personality, such as Hans Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality and Raymond Cattell’s 16PF trait theories, classify individuals along dimensions to allow for comparison across populations.
• Classification Systems: Tools like the DSM and ICD used to diagnose psychological illnesses are nomothetic classification tools.
• Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: Identifies attachment types (secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant) that can be generalized to populations.

AO1

The term “idiographic” comes from the Greek word “idios,” meaning “own” or “private”. This approach focuses on the individual, emphasising their unique personal experience.

Psychologists who adopt this approach believe that human beings are unique and should be studied as individuals to capture the complexity and richness of human experience.

The idiographic approach does not aim to formulate general laws or generalise results to others.

The Complementary Nature of Both Approaches

Many psychologists argue that instead of being contradictory, the idiographic and nomothetic approaches can be complementary.

• An idiographic stance, such as a case study, can often be the “seed” that prompts an idea for further nomothetic research. It explores a behaviour with depth and detail, leading to new research ideas or challenging previous theories from nomothetic research.
• Conversely, nomothetic approaches can establish general principles, which can then be complemented by idiographic case studies that provide unique, in-depth insights not possible experimentally.
• This combined approach allows for the reliability and generalisability of nomothetic findings along with the rich, detailed understanding provided by idiographic methods.
• Some suggest that research should start with a nomothetic approach to establish general laws, and then move to a more idiographic approach to explore those laws in individual cases, getting the best of both worlds.
• Ultimately, both methods are needed to fulfill the aims of science: to describe, understand, predict, and control behaviour.

Social Sensitivity in Psychological Research

AO1

Socially sensitive research is research with potential social consequences for the participants or the groups they represent.

It raises important ethical concerns regarding potential negative impacts like discrimination, stereotyping, and misuse of findings.

Researchers must take particular care, considering the research question, how participants are treated, and how findings are interpreted and applied, weighing costs and benefits, and engaging with ethics committees.

While there are risks, such research can also provide valuable insights, challenge misconceptions, and inform beneficial policies.

Here are some of the potential issues and consequences regarding socially sensitive research:

• Discrimination and Negative Implications: Findings from socially sensitive research can lead to or increase levels of discrimination against certain groups. It can have negative consequences for individuals from specific backgrounds or contribute to the formation of negative stereotypes. For example, research linking crime to specific backgrounds could lead to negative stereotypes, and biased research on gender roles has contributed to stereotypes about females being primary caregivers. Explanations of schizophrenia blaming the family also raise ethical issues and are socially sensitive.
• Misuse of Findings: Socially sensitive research can be used by governments and other organisations to shape policy. However, there’s a risk that flawed research might be used to dictate social policy or put certain groups at a disadvantage. Historical examples include the use of research on IQ to discriminate against US Blacks or justify eugenic policies like sterilisation of people with low IQ. Research suggesting a genetic predisposition for offending behaviour could potentially lead to highly socially sensitive actions like supporting genetic engineering or having legal implications regarding culpability.
• Blaming Individuals or Groups: Some theories can place blame on specific individuals or groups. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis and the concept of monotropy, for instance, can have negative implications for working mothers or single parents and might enhance stigma around mothers who return to work. Explanations of mental health issues based on the psychodynamic approach can be socially sensitive as they might blame parents.
• Stigma and Prejudice: Socially sensitive research can contribute to stigma and create prejudice against groups. Research into Gender Identity Disorder (GID), while potentially promoting understanding, is deemed socially sensitive due to its potential ethical implications for participants.
• Legal Implications: Some theories from socially sensitive research, such as those suggesting a deterministic view of behaviour (like biological predisposition for crime), can have sensitive legal implications regarding an individual’s culpability.

There is an ongoing debate about whether socially sensitive research should be conducted at all.

Arguments for conducting socially sensitive research:

• Promotes Understanding and Reduces Prejudice: By gaining a better understanding of issues related to gender, race, sexuality, and other sensitive topics, psychology can contribute to greater acceptance, challenge misconceptions, and reduce prejudice and stigma in society. For example, Milgram’s research, though controversial, challenged the stereotype that “Germans are different” in their obedience, suggesting most people are capable of extreme obedience in certain situations.
• Benefits Society: Research into socially sensitive topics often provides useful conclusions that can directly impact policy and practice to benefit society. Examples include research on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony leading to improvements in police interviews, or research on the role of fathers in attachment leading to paternity leave.
• Highlights Vulnerable Groups: Avoiding the study of vulnerable or underrepresented groups (e.g., those with Gender Identity Disorder) may be detrimental, as it can lead to a lack of understanding of their unique issues.
• Scientific Responsibility: Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge. Socially sensitive research is often the most scrutinised, with ethics committees rejecting more such research than any other form

Arguments against conducting socially sensitive research:

• Discrimination and Stereotypes: Socially sensitive research can have negative implications by amplifying or validating damaging stereotypes. It can lead to prejudice and discrimination against certain groups.
• Misuse of Findings: Flawed or biased research findings can be used to dictate social policy, justify social control, or put certain groups at a disadvantage. Historically, this has led to horrific outcomes like the forced sterilisation of people deemed “feeble-minded” based on IQ tests.
• Blaming the Victim: Some theories, like the family dysfunction explanation for schizophrenia, can lead to parents feeling responsible and blamed for their child’s illness. Similarly, biological explanations for criminal behaviour can remove accountability from offenders.
• Lack of Scientific Rigour (Historically): Historically, some socially sensitive research has been criticised for unscientific methodologies, lacking control groups or statistical analysis, which undermined the validity and reliability of their findings

Examples of Socially Sensitive Research and Theories

Many areas of psychological research have been identified as socially sensitive due to their potential consequences:

• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis/Monotropy: Bowlby’s theory, which suggests attachment forms with a primary caregiver (often the mother), has been criticised as socially sensitive. It can place pressure on working mothers to delay their return to work and may stigmatise “poor mothers” by blaming them for developmental issues in their children. It might also cause anxiety for single parents.
• Genetic/Biological Explanations for Criminality/Aggression: Research suggesting a biological basis for criminal behaviour (e.g., brain differences, low serotonin, or specific genes) can be highly socially sensitive. It raises concerns about moral responsibility, as it implies criminals may not be fully accountable if their biology made them commit crimes. It could also lead to discrimination against individuals identified with such predispositions, potentially supporting genetic engineering or eugenic policies.
• Intelligence Testing (IQ): Historically, IQ tests have been misused to justify discrimination and social control. For example, Goddard’s (1917) research on IQ led to eugenic procedures in the 1920s and 1930s in the US, where “feeble-minded” individuals (those with low IQ) were sterilised. This highlights how biased research can reinforce racial stereotypes.
• Gender Identity Disorder (GID) / Gender Dysphoria: Research into GID (now referred to as Gender Dysphoria) is socially sensitive. There is a debate about whether it has a biological or psychological origin. Misreporting of findings could lead to social stigma, or the interpretation that atypical gender identity is a choice that should be “treated”. However, avoiding research into vulnerable groups like those with GID may be detrimental, as it can promote understanding and reduce prejudice. The shift from “Gender Identity Disorder” to “Gender Dysphoria” in diagnostic manuals reflects an attempt by the scientific community to be more socially sensitive.
• Family Dysfunction Explanation for Schizophrenia: This explanation, which attributes the cause of schizophrenia to maladaptive family communication and the home environment, can have negative implications by blaming parents for their child’s illness. Its social sensitivity may mean it is not widely researched or accepted.
• Differential Association Theory (Forensic Psychology): This theory, which suggests criminality is learned through association with others, is socially sensitive because it can lead to negative stereotypes of individuals from certain “crime-ridden” backgrounds, implying they are “destined” to become criminals.
• Eyewitness Testimony (EWT): While research into EWT has provided useful applications (e.g., cognitive interview to reduce wrongful convictions), some studies involved ethical issues by exposing participants to distressing images or forcing recall of traumatic events.
• Caregiver-Infant Interactions: Research suggesting the importance of interactional synchrony between a mother and infant can be socially sensitive, implying that a child may not develop as well if they don’t receive high levels of it, potentially impacting working mothers.
• General Gender Bias: Research affected by gender bias can have negative implications for society. This includes creating or reinforcing rigid gender stereotypes (e.g., assuming females should be primary caregivers) and providing “scientific justification” for denying women opportunities in the workplace or society. It can also impact the validity of research findings, as biased methodologies or researcher expectations may lead to differences being found where they don’t exist.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children put in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children that participated would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, think of the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young charges in daycare or those who recently have!

b) IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are in no way harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

AO1

Given these potential consequences, researchers conducting socially sensitive research need to be particularly careful.

Sieber and Stanley (1988) outlined several ethical concerns researchers should be mindful of:

1. The Research Question:

The research question itself needs careful consideration. Asking questions that could be damaging to members of a particular group (e.g., about racial differences in IQ or inherited intelligence) should be approached with extreme caution.

Researchers should formulate aims and frame questions carefully to avoid misrepresenting certain groups.

2. Treatment of Individual Participants:

Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines, including informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, protection from harm, and justice/equitable treatment.

In socially sensitive research, informed consent needs extra care, as participants should be aware of how participating might affect them.

Privacy refers to controlling information about oneself, while confidentiality refers to protecting personal data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

There are different ways to approach consent, including presumptive consent, prior general consent, and retrospective consent.

• Scientific freedom: Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.
• Ownership of data: When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their own interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

3. The Institutional Context:

This refers to the environment in which the research is conducted and how it might influence the study or be affected by its findings.

For example, if an organization participates in research and the results make them “look bad,” it could affect employees and customers.

4. Interpretation and Application of Findings:

This is crucial in socially sensitive research. Researchers need to consider how their findings might be interpreted and applied in the real world.

They should be alert to the possibility of misuse and take steps to present findings in a value-free way. Care is needed in communicating with the media and policymakers.

Researchers should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research and its limitations so the public can understand them.

Engaging with the media and policy makers after publication is also suggested as a way to manage wider implications.

Dealing with social sensitivity also involves:

• Reflexivity: Researchers should carefully consider their own influential position, biases, beliefs, values, and experiences, and how these might unconsciously influence their research. This self-awareness helps in recognizing stereotypes and adapting methods to be more culturally relevant.
• Careful Formulation of Research Questions: Questions should be worded to accurately represent the studied group and avoid reinforcing stereotypes.
• Anticipate Misuse of Findings: Researchers should be alert to the possibility that their findings could be misinterpreted or misapplied. They should take steps to present results in a value-free way, without ideological assumptions, and clearly communicate what the research does not mean, along with its limitations.
• Manage Media Communication: Psychologists should actively engage with the media and policymakers after publication to prevent sensationalism or biased presentations of their findings.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Before conducting research, especially sensitive studies, a cost-benefit analysis should be performed. This involves weighing the potential harm to participants and wider society against the potential benefits of the research. Research should only proceed where the benefits significantly outweigh the costs.
• Privacy and Confidentiality: Ensuring participants’ data and personal information are protected, especially in sensitive areas like sexuality or HIV status.
• Sound and Valid Methodology: This is crucial for socially sensitive topics, as flawed research can be taken as “fact” by the public and used to dictate policy.