Being a psychologist partially requires being a researcher, which means that we always have to come up with new ideas. The interesting thing about studying psychology is that the new questions never end, since we study the behaviour of individuals and there are many factors that change it.
Background is a basic factor that modifies behaviour. Even if we try to get results that describe the average, every person is different because of the experiences they’ve had and the cultural differences. Religion, gender, status and educational level are also closely connected to the way someone behaves.
Mental disorders can influence the validity of the results of a study. What if some of the participants are compulsive liars? The possibility of lying when it comes to their answers is pretty high, so the researcher can’t be actually sure if every single answer is the one it is supposed to be. On the other hand, it is impossible to test every single participant. It would be time consuming and would certainly cost lots of money, as well.
Motives can also be triggering. For instance, if the study includes giving money to the participants, they might go for the results they think are more likely to be the “correct” ones. Under these circumstances, the least a researcher can do is modifying the questions in a way that no motives are shown, unless it’s part of the study.
As I’ve said before, we work with human beings, so how sure can we be about them? We can’t predict, nor guarantee for the outcomes of our studies.
I do not agree that mental disorders influence result as researchers should not include mentally ill participants in their studies, and I have not heard of researchers that have done so without intention. Also participants may have a 'mental illness', but this does not necessary mean it will be an extraneous variable - for example anxiety and depression are mental illnesses, yet may not influence results as the task may be fairly simple. I agree that humans are unpredictable, however it is the researchers responsibility to ensure that participants are fit and healthy to be in the study,
ReplyDeleteLuckily we can sometimes spot in questionnaires or interviews if someone has been lying, there are questions which are asked and if given a certain answer it is obvious that that person is trying to be socially desirable. We can also work also just find what the majority of people were like to come to a conclusion and we can retest over and over again to find if we have the same results. This excludes some anomalies and liars so that we can come to a fair and valid conclusion. I do agree that some experiments have too many faults and confounding variables always stand in the way and so there is never an absolute truth behind any research.
ReplyDeleteIn many studies extraneous variables can be a big problem in the reliability of the data being collected. However, researchers will always try to keep as many variables under control as is possible so that their data is reliable and therefore useful. Similarly, demand characteristics will always be a problem when working with human beings, we are not objective, and people will very rarely tell the whole truth, especially to a stranger. However, apart from trying to tailor the study to eradicate demand characteristics, there is very little that can be done to make sure people are honest with their behaviours and answers. I agree with you that it is difficult to tell, sometimes, whether your results will be reliable. But psychologists work very hard to increase reliability in all of their work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points about people not carrying out experiments properly which may affect the validity of the results. I personally believe that the SONA experiments carried out within Bangor University could have some results which are not representative of their true views, this may be simply because the first and second year undergraduates are told and people may simply fill in questionnaires with any answers to get them out of the way without taking them seriously. However, the research must still be at least valid in some ways and could help further understanding in the field, anyone making their answers ridiculous on purpose will be considered an anomolie in comparison to the others which will ensure the results are not swayed too heavily.
ReplyDeleteThe way researchers get around the idea of demand characteristics is by using different techniques in their experiments such as a self report questionnaire can sometimes lead to many people being dishonest in their answers for one reason or another but it is an ideal research technique when testing huge numbers of people. Interviews and face to face techniques help to eliminate demand characteristics which acts as a way of making your results more valid. A third technique that helps research become more valid are field experiments as the participant does not know that they are participating in an experiment therefore their behaviour is completely organic. I think overall yes it is hard to gain accurate results that are able to be generalised to the whole population but the research should take this into consideration when designing their experiment to help minimize extraneous variables
ReplyDeleteI agree that money can be a strong incentave to participants to carry on with an experement, even if they do not want to, for example in Milgrams study on obedience, he was paying his participants, and so although they had the right to withdraw, they may have felt it to be rude to do so, because of the financial incentaive.
ReplyDeleteAlso on the issue of people with mental disorders in experements, surely a reasercher would not let a person with a severe mental disorder enter an experement. And as for less severe disorders e.g. depression, this would not make a difference on some studies e.g. computer tasks.
I don't think we can ever be 100& sure about participants but we should still strive to get as accurate results as possible and use various methods to overcome this obstacle. Perhaps using anonymous questionnaires to make individuals feel less pressured or like they need to lie. Of course some still will but that should not stop us still collecting data. Another method is by also testing biological factors in research if possible. Someone can lie about not feeling stressed but their biology will indicate how true this may be and the researcher can interpret this data accordingly. Maybe lying in studies shows something about human nature that hasn't been discovered yet?
ReplyDeleteIt is true that psychologists or the researchers can 100% sure of their findings to be correct, due to the variable response of the participants. Though it is less likely, participants can still lie without reason while doing survey or questionnaire. Or as you have suggested, some participants may suffer from mental disorders that may affect their responses in the experiment. Because of that, scientists do not prove things. They use the findings from the previous studies, and carry out their own studies. As the findings accumalated, they can be analysed and give out a prediction of human trend or behaviour. If it is supported with evidence, it then become theory. Nevertheless, researchers can never be sure about their findings.
ReplyDeleteEven though I liked your blog. You discussed how psychologists partly do research, however you could have also mentioned the other things which psychologists do.
ReplyDeleteYou also talked about how researchers are always needing new ideas, however researchers tend to develop their ideas and expand them, which can directly lead to a new ideas and new research questions.
You also suggested how background is important in modifying behaviour, however this can be positive and negative: by improving a person’s behaviour, as well as, impacting negatively on a person’s behaviour.
Due to never being able to be completely sure about the results, the researcher must therefore use his/hers judgement when interpreting and analysing data. I agree with you when you say, that we cannot ever be sure.
You have a decent point here, I beleive that in essentially all areas of every type of science we will never truly understand everything and there will always be questions. It is common-place now'a days for the constructs of psychological knowledge to change due to a single finding. We are constantly learning more and more, however it is also true that the use of participants is a hinderance on one area as it is effective in another; using your example of a compulsive liar, this participant would be useful in research on their lying, however a study that is on something unrelated will be damaged by the potentially false data they would receive. This pushes psychologists to therefore analyse their participants more carefully when choosing who to use (provided they are using a sampling method that this is applicable to)in order to avoid the negativity associated with extraneous variables from the participants.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the comments that you have made in this blog, I think that it is hard to judge whether or not psychological research can ever be relied on due to the fact that all humans are both different and unpredictable, so how can we decide what research to use, and what research not to use? There are a huge amount of extraneous variables that could influence the results and findings of a study, even something as simple as the participants mood that day could affect the answers they give during questioning and this could lead to an unreliable result. Some participants may give into demand characteristics and may just say what they think the experimenter wants to hear. In the case of Freud's study into Little Hans (1909), a 5 year old boy who displayed unusual behaviour towards his father and complained of strange dreams and a fear of horses- a critique of the study was that Little Hans' parents followed Freud's work and changed what they told Freud in order to fit in with his theories- making for unreliable findings. There are lots of areas of psychology in which reliability is questioned and when using human participants, the risk for unpredictability is always common!
ReplyDeleteThe final results that are gathered from the experiment are important regardless of the participant's actions. Or aren't they what we measure anyway so from the ashes of one experiment another can give birth. The observation of the participant's actions throughout the experiment and what can influence those actions.
ReplyDelete