by Paul Seager
The way in which participants may modify their responses or behaviour to ensure that they ‘look good’ and are portrayed in the best possible way.
ARCHIVAL RESEARCH
It is possible that a set of data, which is of interest to social psychologists, already exists in some form; in which case they will simply reanalyse the data in such a way to give them answers to a question that is of interest. For example, if they were interested in whether female defendants in a jury trial were treated more leniently than male defendants, and whether this varied by type of crime (e.g. murder vs. shoplifting), they might seek permission to access the archives of a number of Crown courts and pull out the data they need from existing records. This method has the advantage that it is real-world data and thus possesses a good degree of ecological validity (in a way that experimental lab-based data may not), but has the disadvantage that the data may be incomplete (e.g. missing data that the researcher needs) or lacking in context (for example, the exact circumstances in which the data was collected). Typically archival data is used to formulate a hypothesis that is then tested using a more controlled method.
CASE STUDIES
A case study typically involves collecting some form of data about a single individual or group. A particularly interesting case study was conducted by Festinger and his colleagues with regard to a small group who prophesized the end of the world (chronicled in his fascinating book ‘When prophecy fails’ – well worth a read); it details the group dynamics both in the lead up to the predicted event and after the event fails to happen, and looks at the way the individuals react. It has the advantage of being able to take a very detailed and intricate look at behaviour in a naturalistic setting, but lacks control of confounding variables, may be very difficult to replicate and potentially hard to generalize to a wider population. However, such studies usually facilitate the production of specific hypotheses which can be tested under more controlled conditions.
Having looked at a number of different methods that might be employed, it is important to note that no one method is necessarily better than another. They all have strengths and weaknesses, and it may be possible to employ more than one method to address a research question (e.g. we could employ a survey method and/or an experimental method to address our question of whether ‘birds of a feather flock together’).
There are certainly many additional issues that should be considered with regards to the design and implementation of studies, and it is beyond the scope of this chapter, or indeed this book, to cover them all. However, one question that does crop up from time to time in the forthcoming chapters is whether or not a study, a method, or a tool (such as a questionnaire) is a valid one; thus it will be useful to introduce briefly the notion of ‘validity’.
Types of validity
There are a number of different types of validity that relate to research. In general, if an individual asks about the validity of a study, they are just questioning whether the study is doing what it purports to do. For example, if a study claims that it is testing the effect of type of leadership on group productivity, then this is what it must do, and in this particular instance, for the study to be valid, steps should have been taken to ensure that the productivity of the group cannot have been affected by anything else other than the type of leadership. However, there are other more specific types of validity and these include:
• Face validity: the extent to which it is clear as to what the study is testing. The advantage of this type of validity is that it can motivate participants to engage with a study if they can see its purpose. However, in some cases, if a study has too much face validity, the responses of participants may be affected. For instance, if a questionnaire distributed to participants states in the opening sentence of its instructions that it intends to measure how racist the individual is, this will almost certainly have an effect on participant answers;
• Internal validity: the degree to which confidence can be maintained that the independent variable actually influences the dependent variable, thus reflecting a real effect;
• Content validity: the extent to which a test used in a study covers the specific topic area, and to which it has been verified by an expert. Some intelligence tests have been scrutinized with regards to their content validity: do they actually measure intelligence (whatever that might be).
There are many other types of validity, such as predictive validity, construct validity, concurrent validity, external validity and so forth. These may refer to either the study itself or the tools (e.g. questionnaires) employed by the study.
This chapter then has looked at the different methods that social psychologists employ to study social phenomena, and there are certainly many different areas for them to study and many questions to answer. However, the ways in which they go about obtaining these answers must be ethical ones, and hence the final section of this chapter deals with the sometimes tricky issue of ethics within social psychological research.
Ethics
When conducting research, social psychologists are bound by a set of ethical guidelines in order to protect their participants. These guidelines are usually set by the governing body for psychologists in whatever country they practice: for example, in Britain it is the British Psychological Society (BPS), and in America it is the American Psychological Association (APA). It should be noted that not all psychologists will necessarily belong to a governing body: it is usual that they do, but it is not a legal requirement.
The full BPS code of ethics and conduct can be accessed from: http://www.bps.org.uk. The structure of the code is based around four ethical principles (see Spotlight below). However, whilst these four principles are indeed the cornerstones of the ethical code, there are five key factors that every student, who plans to carry out some form of research, has drummed in to them:
1 Informed consent
2 Respect for privacy (anonymity and confidentiality)
3 Use of deception
4 Welfare of participants
5 Debriefing
Informed consent refers to the fact that every potential participant has the right to know what the researcher will be asking them to do before they agree to take part in a study. Occasionally, it is necessary to employ deception (see below) in a study whereby participants are not informed about the true nature of the study until it has concluded. However, it is important that participants are informed of the exact nature of the study at the earliest possible opportunity (see debriefing below).
It is important that researchers have a respect for privacy of their participants. As a general rule, all participants can expect to remain anonymous with regards to the data that they are providing by taking part in a study; likewise, any responses they give to the researcher should be treated as confidential. If for any reason anonymity and confidentiality are unable to be preserved, the researcher must inform the participant at the earliest possible opportunity so that they can decide whether or not to take part in the study, or, if they have already completed the study, whether or not they want to withdraw their data – a decision that must be accepted unconditionally by the researcher.
Probably the most (in)famous use of deception in a study was by Stanley Milgram in his obedience experiments (see Chapter 6 for further details). Deception is usually used in order to get a snapshot of a participant’s true behaviour in a given situation; in some situations, if participants were told about the exact nature of the study in advance, it is unlikely that the researcher could have confidence that their results were a true reflection of what would really happen in the situation. Where possible the use of deception should be avoided unless the integrity of the study depends upon its use. If deception is used within a study, the researcher must inform the participants of the nature of the deception as soon as possible (usually at the conclusion of the study via the debriefing – see below).
The physical and psychological welfare of participants is of paramount importance. Any research must be carefully considered to ensure tha
t the potential for harm to participants has been reduced as much as possible. Additionally, participants should be told that even if they agree to take part in a study, they have the right to withdraw from it at any point, especially if they are experiencing any form of distress. Where any possible distress is anticipated in advance (no matter how small), such as when asking participants to complete questionnaires regarding difficult topics (for example, studies investigating child abuse or rape myths), the researcher needs to have a support mechanism in place. It is not unusual for a participant to be given a list of support help lines, or websites, at the end of a questionnaire study.
Debriefing must occur at the end of any study, its purpose being to inform participants of the nature of the study (or the true nature of the study if deception has been used). It is also the ideal time to tell participants of any support networks that are available to them, and to answer any questions that they may have about the study in which they have just participated. Where the study may appear to the participant to be evaluative in nature (e.g. a test of an ability, such as intelligence, reasoning or lie detection), it is important that they are reassured of their anonymity, the confidentiality of their data, that the results are merely a snapshot at one specific moment in time and therefore perhaps are not a true reflection of their actual ability (if appropriate). A final consideration of the debriefing is to ensure that the participant leaves the study in the same condition (e.g. mood) as when they started the study.
Spotlight: British Psychological Society: Four ethical principles
According to the BPS code of ethics and conduct published in August 2009, which is current at the time of the publication of this book, there are four guiding principles. All members of the BPS are bound by these principles, and the statement of values attached to each; these are stated verbatim below:
1 ‘Respect: Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over clients, and with particular regard to people’s rights including those of privacy and self-determination.
2 Competence: Psychologists value the continuing development and maintenance of high standards of competence in their professional work, and the importance of preserving their ability to function optimally within the recognized limits of their knowledge, skill, training, education and experience.
3 Responsibility: Psychologists value their responsibilities to clients, to the general public, and to the profession and science of Psychology, including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contributions to society.
4 Integrity: Psychologists value honesty, accuracy, clarity, and fairness in their interactions with all persons, and seek to promote integrity in all facets of their scientific and professional endeavours.’
Summary
This chapter looked at the different ways in which social psychologists conduct research. The basic tenets of the scientific method (which underlies such research) were described, as were a number of different popular methods that they use, such as experiments and surveys. Advantages and disadvantages of the different methods were highlighted, and it became clear that it was possible to use different methods to address different (or even the same) research questions. The importance of ethics in research was also addressed.
Food for thought
As you work your way through this book and read about different studies, try to think about whether there might have been alternative ways in which the research could have been conducted. Assess the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative methods and consider any ethical issues that might need to be addressed. If you’re feeling really brave, design a study to test whether ‘Many hands make light work’ or whether actually ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’.
Dig deeper
British Psychological Society. (2009). Code of Ethics and Conduct. Guidance published by the ethics committee of the British Psychological Society. Accessed via: www.bps.org.uk
Coolican, H. (2014) Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology. Sixth Edition. Hodder & Stoughton.
Robson, C. (2011) Real World Research. Third Edition. Wiley & Sons.
Fact-check
1 A statement that can be measured in some way, and which is potentially falsifiable, is referred to as:
a A hypothesis
b An independent variable
c A dependent variable
d A theory
2 With regard to the scientific method, which is the correct order for the sequence of steps employed?
a Hypothesize, observe, test, analyse, repeat, modify
b Observe, hypothesize, test, analyse, modify, repeat
c Hypothesize, observe, test, modify, analyse, repeat
d Observe, test, hypothesize, modify, analyse, repeat
3 A study is conducted that aims to investigate whether or not ‘Opposites attract’. University students who have recently started dating are asked to complete a number of personality tests. Six months later, the couples are contacted again by the researcher to find out whether they are still together. It is expected that couples who show different personality traits are more likely to still be together than couples who show similar personality traits. The independent variable for this study is:
a Participants are university students
b Whether the couple are still together after six months
c Whether or not couples share the same personality traits
d The different type of personality tests used
4 With regards to the study above, the dependent variable is:
a Participants are university students
b Whether the couple are still together after six months
c Whether or not couples share the same personality traits
d The different type of personality tests used
5 With regards to the study above, is it:
a A survey
b A case study
c An experiment
d A quasi-experiment
6 If we modify our study slightly and decide to test both same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, what type of study is it?
a A survey
b A case study
c An experiment
d A quasi-experiment
7 Which of the following is not an advantage of an experiment?
a It allows us to determine cause and effect
b It allows us to control the conditions and reduce the influence of confounding variables
c It is easier to replicate than some other methods
d It measures a small snapshot in time
8 Which of the following is not a true statement?
a Field studies are high in ecological validity but lack a degree of control
b Surveys can recruit large numbers of participants quite quickly whilst retaining a good level of control
c Archival research gives the researcher access to existing data which saves time, but the data may be incomplete
d Cases studies allow a very detailed look at one individual or group, but lack generalizability to a wider population
9 The extent to which a study appears to be investigating what it claims to be investigating is referred to as:
a Face validity
b External validity
c Internal validity
d Ecological validity
10 Which of the following is not one of the four ethical principles of the British Psychological Society?
a Respect
b Competence
c Vision
d Integrity
2
The Self
‘Who am I?’ It’s a question that we have probably all asked ourselves at several points throughout our lives. And it is a question that is quite difficult to answer. If you were given a piece of paper which had ‘Who am I?’ written at the top of it, and you were asked to write twenty things to answer the question, your answers would be quite different to the next person asked to do it
; in fact, your answers might be quite different to the ones that you might give if asked to do the same task in a week, a month or a year’s time.
As humans, we try to make sense of the world, and such understanding inevitably starts with trying to understand ourselves. To do this, we have to ask some difficult questions: for example, what makes us who we are? How do we make sense of the information that we hold about ourselves? How do we feel about ourselves? How does who we are make us do what we do. This chapter looks at how social psychologists have attempted to answer these questions.
Understanding the Self
To begin to understand ourselves, we must first become self-aware, and this is not something that happens immediately upon our birth. For example, if you were to paint a spot on the nose of a baby and place them in front of a mirror, their behaviour would depend on their age. A very young child (up until the age of about 12 months) would not reach for their nose to investigate the spot; instead they would likely assume that they were seeing another child. However, at around 18 months, they would probably identify the image in the mirror as being themselves and consequently reach out to investigate the spot on their nose. This is taken as the first indication of self-awareness, and with this awakening comes the beginning of the desire to understand more about oneself – a desire that remains with most people for the rest of their lives.
Generally speaking, there are three ways in which we can gather information about our self:
1 We can do it ourselves (self-understanding).
2 We can rely on another person to do it (other-understanding).
3 We can use groups to define ourselves (group understanding).
SELF-UNDERSTANDING
There are two main routes to self-understanding: introspection and the observation of our own behaviour (self-perception).
