Classic Study Essays

However, when they conducted their experiments they did not breach any ethical guidelines since they did not exist (Matta, 2014). Hence, to protect the welfare, rights, dignity, and mental health of the participants, strict ethical guidelines were introduced in psychological experiments which have positively influenced the field of psychology. Also, due to ethical frameworks, people are viewed as ‘participants’ of a study instead of ‘subjects’ in an experiment. They also make psychological experiments more reputable, leading to an increase in the willingness of participation by people as their safety is ensured. The increased willingness of participation is beneficial in order to discover more about human behaviour, the effectiveness of treatment, mechanisms of a psychiatric disorder etc.

Write a three- to four-page article review in which you discuss methodological issues unique to psychological research and analyze basic

Looking at the history of human research experiments necessitates investigation into the background; why is it not sufficient to simply to undertake an experiment merely to broaden scientific study and understanding? Are not the psychologists and scientists ethical and professional? The answer is quite simply, not always. While many psychologists may have started their experiments with the best of intentions, there were a number that merely seized opportunities that were in their grasp. Hence, there came the need for the Belmont Report and the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics in direct response to testing on human subjects.

Let's begin with the bad, the Albert experiment headed by John Watson and his wife Rosalie Rayner is looked upon as being uncritical based on the APA code of ethics. The Albert experiment was considered to be uncritical, as it did not protect Albert from psychological harm mentally. The little Albert experiment was conducted to study classical conditioning. Watson was interested in how people developed phobias. Watson could have cured Albert using a systematic desensitization but never

However, Gauthier & Tarr and Diamond & Carey’s methodologies have come under much criticism especially from Robbins and McKone. Robbins and McKone argue that they have found major flaws in the expert hypothesis. The differing views of these psychologists are outlined in fiery academic exchanges (Robbins & McKone 2007), (McKone & Robbins, 2007), (Gauthier & Baukach, 2007). As a

The little Albert experiment would not be accepted in modern day as an acceptable research experiment. The modern day codes of conduct in the Psychology world would not allow this type of experiment to take place. The psychological effects produced by the research in the little Albert experiment could have negative implications on a person for the rest of their lives. Creating a phobia at such a young age could program a brain to fear something that should not be feared according to Mother Nature. We naturally fear the things that can hurt us or even threaten our lives but learn to accept and expand our knowledge on the things that are not a threat. We learn this at a young age by experiencing with different things throughout our lives.

Was his method used in the experiment "good psychology" because his experiment does not meet ethical standards, does that also weaken the integrity of the experiment done. It also begins to question if Albert was his only test subject and if not, was it done under the same pretext as Albert? In our text we are also introduced to "systematic desensitization: " as a way to cure a phobia. After a little more research on the experiment an article "The Little Albert Experiment " by Alexander Burgemeester states that, "Watson could have ‘cured’ Albert of the phobia he had induced using a process known as systematic desensitization but chose not to as he and Raynor wanted to continue with the experiment until the Albert’s mother came to collect

The article discusses the increasing trend of conducting replications, as opposed to novel idea studies Additionally, the article highlights that replications are becoming more common and can lead to debunking and discrediting another’s work. Unfortunately, with the focus being on replication, the time spent conducting and exploring new knowledge is consequently reduced. However, it is also suggested that replications provide accountability for scientists to ensure their work is of high quality. Questions to discuss in class: What do we think is the ultimate goal of conducting a replication versus an original study? How can scientists ensure that as a field, the

Bersstein, D.A., Roy, E.J., Srull, T.K. and Wickens, C.D. (1991). Psychology. 2nd Edition. Boston: Houston Mifflin Company.

This allowed Asch to observe how the choices of the subject differed when placed under peer pressure. The results showed that 75% of the subjects chose the incorrect answer on at least one question although some of the data may be off because of experimental error. Although the experiment may have seemed successful, many people criticize the way it was performed. Some argue that the participant types may have made the data unreliable. The study was composed of mainly young males who were very impressionable to the others thoughts.

Calypso however is the one divinity who does hinder Odysseus through no fault of his own.

A recent Pew poll shows there is an increasingly substantial amount of public disagreement about basic scientific facts, facts such as the human though process (Scientific American). People in today’s society believe that studies, for example the Stanley Milgram Experiments, are falsified and irrelevant. In “The Perils of Obedience” Stanley Milgram, an experienced psychologist at Yale, explains how the human mind reacts to commands when placed under extreme stress. However, Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagrees with Milgram in her article “Review of Stanley Milgram 's Experiments on

The Little Albert experiment is seen as very unethical now, but in 1920 helped out psychologist. It was run by John B. Watson and one of his students, Rosalie Rayner. At the John Hopkins University, Watson and Rayner’s goal was to condition certain phobias into a perfectly normal child. Watson was testing Pavlov’s theory on humans, not dogs. They chose a nine month old baby who they called “Albert,” or “Little Albert.”

Spearheaded by John Watson, who led the field of behaviorism, psychologists across the world began horrendous experiments for a time period they deemed themselves to be so “advanced” and “great.” Watson himself focused on children, due to them being so-called “blank slates”; but that does not mean adults were tested on. One of the most notable psychological experiments ever was the Little Albert Experiment. Watson intended to terrify the poor baby to fear anything with fur- rats, dogs, beards, so on and so forth. Today we recognize this as unethical, but back then, regulation of the psychological community was very poor. Prior to the experiments, Albert was unphased by much. When Watson showed him a laboratory rat, Albert instantly took to it. Watson, while Albert would be petting the rat, struck a steel bar with a hammer, instantly causing Albert to cry. This went on and on, until Albert was practically broken. Any sight of the rat would cause him to burst out in tears. The worst part of the experiment was that Albert was never desensitized. Up until his death 87 years later, Little Albert was terrified of anything with fur, and suffered massive anxiety. Other experiments occurred, less publicized, of course, because the experiments that took place were some of the worst humanity could bring

Psychological research may be undertaken on a subset of society; however the importance of the results may have an effect way beyond the group tested. The value of psychological research varies and the same results can be used in different ways by different groups of society.