The use of illegal drugs in research is a topic that is a debatable one; it sparks many different opinions and is a rather controversial subject. So, should illegal, recreational drugs be allowed for use of psychological research? It could be argued that the use of illegal drugs is considered at ethical as they are used within research, however participants could be at possible risk of psychological or physical harm, and there is the obvious point of some of these illegal substances being addictive – though researchers may only use a small dosage, it may give participants the gateway for wanting to try these substances again.
One type of drug that has been studied and used within research is LSD. A study by Kurland, Savage Pahnke, Grof and Olsson (1971) tested the effects of LSD as a treatment for alcoholism. They split participants into two groups (experimental and control), the experimental group were given a 450microgram dosage of LSD and the control group were given a 50microgram dosage. After 6 months, the experimental group were found to have a significant change in drinking behaviour, however after an 18month follow there was no significant differences between the groups. Though Kurland, et al. (1971) found that although there was no significant differences between the control and experimental group, the overall improvement of the participants were considerably better than alcoholics who had not been treated with LSD.
However, following a review of research Yensen (1985), found that LSD is too much a unique, powerful drug in relation to psychological effects to be studied effectively. This may suggest that other research into the effects of LSD or using LSD may be unreliable as there is evidence to suggest it is difficult to effectively study LSD.
Another drug used widely within research is cannabis. One study tested for the effects of THC from cannabis and prochlorperazine (Compazine; a drug used mostly to treat schizophrenia, anxiety and nausea/vomiting) on cancer patients going through chemotherapy. They tested to see how these drugs influenced side effects of chemotherapy (e.g. nausea, vomiting, appetite, food intake, mood, activity, relaxation, interaction, concentration). It was found that both drugs were equally effective at reducing nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy, though neither had significant difference on level of food intake or appetite. However, the patients in the THC group showed more side effects of the drug, for example they had less ability to concentrate, socially interacted less and were involved in less activity than the prochlorperazine group. Despite this the patients still preferred the cannabis drug whist experiencing chemotherapy (Thomas, Andrysiak, Fairbanks, Goodnight, Sarna & Jamison, 2006). This suggests that although cannabis gave significant effects of being high to the patients, it was also considered beneficial to the patients and it helped them cope with chemotherapy.
Though the use of illegal drugs within research may have problems and many different views, I don’t think the use of them is necessarily a bad thing. I feel the research should be extensively tested for validity and reliability to reduce risk of error, because if results aren’t actually significance and the drug has no beneficial effect to what it is being tested for, participants maybe unnecessarily exposed to harm and the drug. However, I do believe that some illegal substances do have many benefits to some people and may be beneficial to many illnesses or disorders, (much as cannabis is beneficial to those with cancer) and if these drugs do show benefits, they should be researched and made available as treatment to those in need of it.
References
This week I decided to do my blog on a piece of research I have been reading about for starting my third year project. The research paper is called Positive Perceptions in Families of Children with Developmental Disabilities, and was carried out by Hastings and Taunt (2002) at the University of Southampton. Here is a link to the research paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11853529
The aims of the research were to review existing published research on positive perceptions and experiences of family members. Research also aimed to propose a model for further study of families’ positive perceptions (Hastings & Taunt, 2002). The model’s based on a hypothesis that positive perceptions have the role of strategies used to help families adapt to and cope with experiences of raising a child with disabilities. To do this they examined previous research and then compared themes, items and factors they identified from five of the studies. The studies were all slightly different (samples, methods, different concepts of positive perceptions etc.) but agreed the studies were valid and identified key issues. They concluded a number of things from the research. Including that it is clear family members do express positive experiences related to their child with a disability and the impact of the child on the family. It was also concluded the issues identified across the five different studies was consistent, suggesting that the data on the nature or structure of families’ positive perceptions and experiences is reliable (Hastings & Taunt, 2002).
Overall, I think this is a good piece of research. The paper clearly describes the aims of the research and is fairly clear to understand throughout. The research also expresses a need to study positive perceptions of families raising a child with developmental disabilities and the need to form more positive perceptions of these families. The study and others like it may also help shake negative feelings towards the children and their families e.g. pity, discrimination, assuming the family/child suffers etc. As many children with disabilities bring love and joy to their families, and are usually very kind and sweet natured people, however this is still often overlooked and many people cannot see past the child’s disability, and only perceive the negative side of having a child with a disability.
It is also fairly important research, as although this is a fascinating subject, there is limited research for studies of families’ positive perceptions and experiences. Therefore, the paper also discusses whether positive perceptions and experiences can be considered within existing family research models or if there is a need to explore a new theoretical approach (Hastings & Taunt, 2002). This is quite important because as although the research has been considered reliable, it could indicate previous research on the study of positive perceptions may not be reliable, if the questionnaires do not actually have questions relating to positive perceptions. This became clear during research as, Hastings and Taunt (2002) received a letter from a father who pointed out a problem with the questionnaires. The participant stated that in no point in the questionnaire was there a space in which parents could describe positive experiences they have had of raising a child with a disability. How can you test and research positive perceptions without asking about them? The father went on to explain that there are many difficult aspects of caring for a child with a disability … however; he also described some very positive feelings associated with his experience of raising a child with disabilities (Hastings & Taunt, 2002). This has also been shown in similar research, for example, Hornby (1992) stated stressful experiences and negative feelings, but also strong positive feelings and claims of personal growth.
This research links to my third year study because it discusses emotion experienced and expressed by family members raising a child with developmental disabilities. Expressed emotion (EE) is an attitudinal construct that reflects in speech and other behaviours. It is a measure of emotional climate, likely to be experienced by family members in particular (Hastings & Lloyd, 2007). We will be carrying out research that may or may not correlate with previous research!
References
Hastings, R. P. & Lloyd, T. (2007) Expressed emotion in families of children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Mental retardation and developmental disabilities research reviews. 13(4) 339-345.
Hastings, R. P. & Taunt, H. M. (2002) Positive perceptions in families of children with developmental disabilities. American journal of mental retardation. 107(2) 116-127.
Hornby, G. (1992). A review of fathers’ accounts of their experiences of parenting children with disabilities. Disability, handicap and society. 7, 363-374.
Comment 1: http://psuc3d.wordpress.com/author/psuc3d/
Comment 2: http://psucb9.wordpress.com/
Comment 3: http://poeycheung.wordpress.com/
Comment 4: http://sinesofmadness.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/why-is-the-file-drawer-problem-a-problem/
Comment 5: http://prperc.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/painting-an-ideal-picture/#comments
This week I decided to do my blog on the methodology of my latest SONA study. The study I took part in was called ‘motion and colour in moving dots’ and ran by Dr Ayelet Sapir. The study required participants be over the age of 18. They also requested participants to have normal or correct vision (e.g. glasses, contact lenses) and were not colour blind.
The study took 2 hours and was made up of a series of computer tasks. Whilst completing the computer tasks a chin rest was set in place to ensure participants eyes were at the same height level throughout the trials.
Participants were asked to monitor four locations on the screen then report the characteristics of the dots during the trial. Participants were required to monitor motion direction and the colour of the dots. Four large circles appeared on the screen made up of clusters of white dots whilst a plus sign (+) was in the middle of the screen, participants were asked to keep their eyes in the middle of screen through the trials.
During the practices trials participants were first asked to press arrow keys corresponding to the direction the white circles moved in. During the second practice trial participants were asked to indicate in which white circle a red dot appeared or if no dot appeared at all. During the third practice trial participants were asked to indicate if a red dot appeared in a white circle and which direction the white circles moved in.
After completing the practice trials participants were asked to complete 2 more trials on the computer, taking about half an hour each – this was the real experiment. Participants were still asked to place their chin on the rest and keep their eyes focused on the middle of the screen. We were then shown white circles on a black background much the same as in the practice trials. We were again asked to indicate if a red dot appeared in either of the circles and which direction the white circles moved in, this we were also asked to indicate which white circle the red dot had appeared in. However, during the real experiment a large circle of block white appeared on the screen to indicate to get ready and it was rather distracting!
The circles which moved direction or had a red dot appear in them where chosen at random by the computer and were marked in a stairway fashion. This meant the more right answers the harder the computer would make it and the more wrong answers a participant gave the computer would make it easier to monitor motion detection and colour.
Although this was a fairly interesting experiment, it did get rather tiring and I wouldn’t advise completing it with a headache! 😦
Hey! So I didn’t really know what to do my blog on this week but as we’ve been doing within and between subjects designs in lectures recently – and I barely understand them myself :p – it seemed appropriate. Enjoy. J
Experimental research designs are used to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables. For this several basic characteristics are required:
Between subjects designs are also known as independent measures or unrelated measures. Between subjects design is a research design in which each of the different groups of scores are obtained from a separate group of participants.
A between subjects experimental design uses separate groups of individuals for each treatment condition being compared. For example, this design could be used to research the effectiveness of counselling or medication as a treatment for depression by testing the two conditions and determine which participants were less depressed after trials had taken place.
Advantages of a between subjects design:
Disadvantages of a between subject design:
Within subjects designs are also known as a repeated measures design. A within subjects design is a research design in which different groups of scores are obtained from the same groups of participants.
A within subjects experimental design is a design in which the same group of individuals participates in all of the different treatment conditions. For example, a within subjects experimental design can be used to measure reaction times of people.
Advantages of a within subjects design:
Disadvantages of a within subjects design:
References
Gravetter & Forzano (2009) Research Methods for the Behavioural Sciences
The Helsinki Convention was first established in 1964, and it was developed for the World Medical Association (WMA).
The Helsinki Convention follows five basic ethical principles:
Beneficence and no maleficence: The actions must benefits others and prevent them from being harmed. There should be no misconduct.
Fidelity and responsibility: All responsibilities and duties must be fulfilled and carried out in an effective and appropriate manner.
Integrity: Being honest and having strong moral principles.
Justice: Being fair and reasonable.
Respect for people’s dignity and rights: People must not come to harm, psychically or mentally and rights must be adhered to.
Ethics are guidelines and legislation that have to be adhered to. They are widely used in the medical world and scientific world especially psychology, as well as other establishments involving the protection and safety of the public.
There are many advantages to ethics. These include ensuring people are protected and safe. Ethics also protect vulnerable people such as children, people suffering from mental illness and people suffering from a psychical disability. When participating in psychological experiments ethical guidelines give those particular rights when under the researchers care. These include: giving participants the right to consent to the study; keeping participant information confidential; giving the participant the right to withdraw from the study at any time etc.
However there are also possible disadvantages to ethics too. If possible research and studies do not meet ethical standards and ethics cannot be obtained then researchers will be unable to carry out experiments.
Ethics may also make it extremely difficult to replicate or expand on previous research, for example the famous studies done by Milgrim , the electric shock experiment, and by Zimbardo, the Stanford prison experiment. Although the nature of these experiments has been considered highly unethical, they were actually conducted before ethics in America had been established. And thought they found extremely important research about human behaviour in terms of conformity and obedience, due to ethical standards in the 21st century it would be harder to replicate these studies for scientific purposes.
Though it’s apparently acceptable in entertainment!:
Qualitative and quantitative measures are both types of research methods. Qualitative research is defined as research based on observations that are explained and interpreted in a report. Whereas quantitative research has been defined as research based on measuring variables from participants or subjects to obtain scores and collect data, which is usually numerical. The data is then statistically analysed, to be interpreted.
However, just because one method is statistically analysed and one is not, does it actually mean it is less scientific? In my opinion, I wouldn’t say it is any less scientific.
Qualitative research can be useful in a way that quantitative research cannot. Qualitative methods of research explain the behaviour in a holistic manner, gaining a more in depth perceptive and taking more interest in the individual behaviour, than generalising behaviour. This can be useful when carrying out research for areas of psychology such as social and developmental. In social psychology a lot of research and evidence is applied to real life situations and events, and in developmental psychology is primarily looks at children and how they develop through social interaction etc. To be able to learn about these things a lot of research would have to be done observationally in real and fake situations or through use of interviews and questionnaires etc.
Sometimes qualitative research is a more appropriate way to conduct research than quantitative research. And just because there is no numerical data doesn’t mean the evidence from the studies found should be considered any less scientific. Surely what matters is the research itself and not the method in which it has been carried out?
So last week, I was talking about why reliability is important. This week I’m going to talk about the importance of validity because to the two interlink.
But what actually is validity?
Validity of a measurement produce means the degree to which the measurement process measures the variable it claims to measure.
Validity of a research study means the degree to which the study accurately answers the questions it was intended to answer.
However, validity cannot be determined by just one statistic, but a collection of statistics that demonstrate the relationship or the correlation between the variables.
There are several different types of validity, for example:
Threats to validity occur when a component of a research study raises doubts about the quality of the research and the accuracy of the results.
External validity is threatened when any characteristic of the study limits how much the results can be generalised.
Internal validity is threatened when any factor of the study allows for an alternative explanation for the results.
Validity is important because it measures the accuracy of results within a study and therefore the degree to which you can make assumptions, correlations and relationships from data. Evidence cannot be reliable if it has poor validity, however if it has poor reliability it cannot be valid.
.
katepsuc7d 