Often, psychologists develop surveys as a means of gathering data.

Surveys are lists of questions to

be answered by research participants, and can be delivered as paper-and-pencil questionnaires,
administered electronically, or conducted verbally. Generally, the survey itself can be completed in a
short time, and the ease of administering a survey makes it easy to collect data from a large number
of people. Surveys allow researchers to gather data from larger samples than may be afforded by
other research methods. A sample is a subset of individuals selected from a population, which is the
overall group of individuals that the researchers are interested in. Researchers study the sample and
seek to generalize their findings to the population. By using surveys, we can collect information from
a larger sample of people. A larger sample is better able to reflect the actual diversity of the
population, thus allowing better generalizability. Therefore, if our sample is sufficiently large and
diverse, we can assume that the data we collect from the survey can be generalized to the larger
population with more certainty than the information collected through a case study. However, given
the greater number of people involved, we are not able to collect the same depth of information on
each person that would be collected in a case study. Another potential weakness of surveys is
People don't always give accurate responses. They may lie, misremember, or answer questions in a
way that they think makes them look good. For example, people may report drinking less alcohol
than is actually the case. Any number of research questions can be answered through the use of
surveys. One real-world example is the research conducted by Jenkins, Ruppel, Kizer, Yehl, and
Griffin (2012) about the backlash against the US Arab-American community following the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. Jenkins and colleagues wanted to determine to what extent these
negative attitudes toward Arab-Americans still existed nearly a decade after the attacks occurred. In
one study, 140 research participants filled out a survey with 10 questions, including questions asking
directly about the participant’s overt prejudicial attitudes toward people of various ethnicities. The
survey also asked indirect questions about how likely the participant would be to interact with a
person of a given ethnicity in a variety of settings (such as, “How likely do you think it is that you
would introduce yourself to a person of Arab-American descent?”). The results of the research
suggested that participants were unwilling to report prejudicial attitudes toward any ethnic group.
This is according to Jenkins et al., 2012

Some researchers gain access to large amounts of data without interacting with a single research
participant. Instead, they use existing records to answer various research questions. This type of
research approach is known as archival research. Archival research relies on looking at past records
or data sets to look for interesting patterns or relationships. For example, a researcher might access
the academic records of all individuals who enrolled in college within the past ten years and
calculate how long it took them to complete their degrees, as well as course loads, grades, and
extracurricular involvement. Archival research could provide important information about who is
most likely to complete their education, and it could help identify important risk factors for
struggling students.

An observation research was one of the methodologies used in early social psychology
experiments. For example John B Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner got an
opportunity to use this methodology in their experiment on classical conditioning popularly known
as the Little Albert Experiment. The goal of observational research is to describe variables; but more
generally, the goal is to obtain specific characteristics of an individual, group, or setting. It is a non
experiment because nothing is manipulated or controlled, and one cannot arrive at causal
conclusions using this approach. The data that are collected in observational research are more
qualitative in nature but they may also be quantitative. However just like any other experiment the
Little Albert Experiment had its own ethical dilemmas. According to Harris (1979) Critical reading of
Watson and Rayner’s (1920) report reveals little evidence that Albert the participant developed a rat
phobia. Other criticism stem from the health of the child (cited by Douglas Merritte) who was not a
“healthy” ,”normal” infant as claimed in the research, according to the relatives he never learned to
work or talk later in life. The experiment is still considered unethical according to the American
Psychological Association’s ethic code as it broke the risk and benefits ethic and legislation has been
passed to prevent such potentially harmful experiences.

The main focus of the car crash experiment was on the influence of visual imagery and wording of
questions on eye witness testimonies. To achieve this Loftus and Palmer used Experimental Research
method with two experiments having been conducted. The main focus of such a method is to put
participants randomly in groups which would be split in two the control and experimental method.
With a variable which would be recorded. In the first experiment however students were put into
groups without a control group. Having done this a film was shown which had a car crash and they
varied in length. The independent variable in this experiment was the verb which was used when the
students were asked at what speed a vehicle was going before they crashed. To show the influence
of wording five words were used when asking the question. These words were smashed, collided,
bumped, hit, and contacted. The dependent variable was the participants’ estimate of the speed of
the cars when they collided. Those who asked how fast the cars going smashed were recorded the
highest speeds whilst those who were asked using contacted recorded the lowest speeds. In the
second experiment, there were three groups. A film was shown which had a car crash. The
independent variable was the verb used in the question: “How fast were the cars going when they
‘verb’ each other? “The first were asked using the verb hit, the second the verb smashed and the
third was not asked a question and this was the control group. After a week the participants were
brought back to answer questions. The dependent variable was the participants’ answer to the
question; 'Did you see any broken glass?’ answered by either yes or no. In the results many
participants who were asked using the verb using hit and smash saw broken glass whilst few
participants in the control group saw broken glass. The ethical issues in the Loftus and Palmer (1974)
study were the act of deception. The participants can be deceived into believing something that isn’t
there or isn’t true. For example, they were deceived into believing that there was broken glass at the
scene of the accident

The Stanford Prison Experiment adopted a qualitative or interpretive research approach to establish
the behavior of normal individuals when assigned the role of prisoner or guard in the stanford prison
study. According to Elzeheimer Europe (2009), qualitative research is the approach usually
associated with the social constructivist paradigm which emphasizes the socially constructed nature
of reality. It is about recording, analysing and attempting to uncover the deeper meaning and
significance of human behavior and experience including contradictory beliefs, behavior and
emotions. The researcher felt that qualitative approach was appropriate for the study as the
approach helped place participants at the centre as their actions, ideas, values and meaning of
participants constituted the critical information needed for the study as asserted by Hilcock and
Haghes (1989). The research used this method because its naturalistic nature rendered the
participants the ability to freely express what they felt and how they would act in a position of a
guard or a prisoner, their reaction in a position of power or a weakness. The Stanford Prison
Experiment used an experimental observation research design both unstructured and quasi-
longitudinal to collect data. According to MacMillan and Schumacher 1989, research design is an
overall strategy for integrating the different components of the study in a coherent and logical way
to ensure that the research problem is effectively addressed. It constitutes the blueprint for
collecting data, measurement and analysis. The experiment is experimental observational design
because of random role assignments employed, data is collected over time to measure behavioural
changes of the people and the newly evolving behavior had been watched and subsequently been
collected as occuring data. The experimental observational design helped explore intensively the
dependent and independent variables in the Stanford Prison Experiment with the independent
variable being random assignment of roles as either guard or prisoner and dependent variable is the
measured individual and group behavior in response according to Haney et al (1973). Prisoners and
guards made up the unit of analysis.

The population of the study comprised of 24 undergraduate students who played the roles of
prisoners and guards and Zimbordo was warden thus making a group of 25 people. According to
Polit and Hungler (1999), population is the totality of all subjects that fit within a set of specifically
composing group of people of interest to the researcher and to whom the study can be generalized.
The set up a mock prison in the basement of Stanford University psychology building and then
selected 24 people from a large group of 70 volunteers with no criminal background, lacked
psychological issues and had no significant medical conditions. The researcher adopted the
purposive situational analysis sample in a natural setting based on the characteristics and behaviour
of the population and which the researcher deems crucial to understanding the phenomenon being
investigated. This seeks an objective explanation of behavior through imputing a dominant go or
motive then identifying the action objectively appropriate to the situation. The study adopted is
sample size of 25 participants with 12 prisoners and 12 guards and a warden who showed
willingness and interest to participate in the study. Data was collected using a combination of
qualitative and quantitative data. The main data was qualitative and was obtained using video, audio
tape and direct observation. The participants were respondents to a newspaper advertisement
which asked for male volunteers to participate in a psychological study prison life in return for a
payment of $15 per day with respondents completing a questionnaire before enrolment. According
to Peter Loizos (2008), video recording becomes necessary whenever any set of human action is
complex and difficult to be comprehensively described by a single observer while it is taking place. In
this experiment it allowed to capture body, facial and verbal experiences used in this situation. The
integration of sound in moving images helped unravel the complex network of meaning, production
in the meanings expressed in words, gestures and also guard-prisoner relationship. It allowed
recording of fleeting and non-repeatable events that would most likely escape observation according
to Anna Maria Sadallah and Priscilla Larocca (2004) for example the cutting off food supply and
bathroom use and even the disallowing of prisoners to wear underwear. In this study research data
was collected from video, audio-tapes and observations from the participants was analysed
narratively under the themes derived mainly from research objectives upon which the study was
granted and these include what triggers change in human behavior as a result of social roles. In the
study the research paid attention to ethical consideration like informed consent. According to Rangit
(2005), informed consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. Prisoners and guards
who participated in this study had freely consented to participation without being coerced and fairly
pressurized. However they were ethical dilemmas in the experiment despite trail to make sure
everything was done in the proper manner. The right to withdraw was broken. A fundamental tenet
of ethical research is not soliciting participation under coercion. Although the participants were
initially informed of their right to withdraw their participation in the study, it was subsequently
revoked. Whilst Zimbardo argues that they chose to stay in the study the right to withdraw was
compromised as “the prisoners reinforced a sense of imprisonment by telling each other that there
was no way out” (Zimbardo, P., p. 2). As a result there was violation to the right to withdrawal on the
part of the prisoners. Deception or informed consent was also violated in the experiment. Whilst
Zimbardo argues that participants were informed of the conditions they would experience, there
were other conditions in the experiment, such as being arrested by a real policeman at their home
and the level of degradation to be experienced over the course of the experiment had not been
outlined in sufficient detail. Deception was evident throughout the study and as such was unethical.
The right of informed consent was violated as some information regarding the experiment was left
behind. Debriefing was also violated in the experiment. The study also failed to debrief participants
until several years later, at which point it was difficult to assess what level of psychological harm had
occurred as a result of participation in the experiment. A post-experimental debriefing is now
considered an important ethical consideration in the design of a study and may serve to protect
participants from further psychological harm and rehabilitate those affected by participation but as
in the case of Zimbardo's experiment, it was not given at the right time. Protection from Harm was
another ethical dilemma. Not all risks that arose from the study were anticipated however, the study
was not immediately shut down when they did arise. Participants playing the role of prisoners were
not protected from psychological or physical harm, experiencing significant incidents of physical
abuse, humiliation and psychological distress. “For example, one prisoner had to be released after 36
hours because of uncontrolled bursts of screaming, crying, and anger”(McCleod, S, p. 4). Ethical
guidelines for the protection of participants from physical and psychological harm were developed
as a result of the Stanford Prison experiment. As a result there was violation against protection on
behalf of participants.

The experiment of focus in this discussion is the Bobo-doll experiment, an experiment carried out on
children between three and six years as a way of studying the development of aggression on
children. Participant observation was a key element in this experiment. Each child was tested
individually although they were divided into groups and shown two different scenes. The first scene
presented an adult behaving aggressively towards the doll. Plotnik and Kouyomdjian (2010) highlight
that in the second scene, an adult ignored the doll completely. Yet in the other scene the adult
behaved non-aggressively. The children were placed in a room with attractive toys for a short time
and the upset children were again placed in a room with the Bobo doll as the experimenter observed
each one's reaction taking note of the level of aggression. Shaffer (2010) notes that according to
conclusions of Bandura, the aggressive pattern of behaviour of adults towards the doll allowed
children to assume that such action is acceptable and as a result the children entrenched the
aggressive pattern of behaviour to any problem. The continuous manifestation of aggressive
behaviour is an ethical dilemma which is further explained by looking into the deontological theory
which states that whether an act is right or wrong depends on whether it is in conformity or conflict
with moral duties and most of all the rights. Example, a duty not to harm anyone is an ethical
principle to be considered. In this case it is in conflict because children were not given the ability to
withdraw when they felt uneasy. Article 36 of children’s rights states that children have the right to
be protected from all exploitation including being exploited throughout the research processes and
through dissemination of information (Beazely et al. 2006 p.22). Therefore, as fear was impacted in
the children it later made some to act differently in an aggressive manner, imitating what they saw
adults doing, yet the justice ethical principle states that decision makers should focus on actions that
are fair to those involved. Hence, an analysis of this prediction shows that it is unethical to expose
children of such a tender age to aggressive behaviour since it can have a huge impact on their overall
behaviour going forward and could become the participant's behaviour.

Like Humphrey, Milgram used deception in his research to test obedience in humans. After gathering
a sample of 40 males with various career backgrounds, he told the participants that they were
participating in research on the effects of punishment on memory. In each session, the participants
was always assigned the role of the teacher while a confederate played the leaner and was
ultimately strapped to an electrical l chair that could be controlled by the teacher in another room .
The two will communicate via an intercom system, Milgram, 1963. Although all participants believed
the set up to genuine, the leaner would never receive any actual shocks. The participants job was to
read to the leaner a list of words and wait for him to repeat the in odder. If he was incorrect or did
not respond he was given a shock. Each time this occurred the participant had to administer a fake
shock that was 15 volts more than intense than the last (the maximum was 450 volts). The shock
machine was labelled with phrases such as “danger; severe shock” (Milgram 1963). If a participant
expressed any concerned during the session, the experimenter urged him to continue by saying, for
example, “it is absolutely essential that you continue”( Milgram 1963). But, participants were told at
the beginning of the experiment that they were free to leave whenever they wish to do so. The
other dilemma is if deception is used, it must be justified to ensure that people will regard it as a
necessary experiment. This is because in this experiment the participants would have a good reason
why they engaging in an experiment.

Deceptin to the participants is one of the ethical dilemmas in this experiment the participants
actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate
of Milgram's.However, Milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the
stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths."Milgram also interviewed participants
afterward to find out the effect of the deception. Apparently, 83.7% said that they were “glad to be
in the experiment," and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved.The other dilemma
was lack of informed consent which is a fundamental principle of ensuring that rights are
safeguarded in experiments to seek their consent before they participate. In this experiment they
were not full informed since they were told at the end and where given the opportunity to
withdraw at any time after he had managed to find what he wanted.
REFRENCES

Alzheimer Europe (2009) Global Clinical Trials for Alzheimer’s Disease: Design, Implemantation and
Standardization

Macmillan, J.H and Schumacher, S.S (1997). Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction.
Longman, New York

Haney,C., Banks,W.C and Zimbardo, P.G. (1973) A study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated
Prison

Pilot,D. and Hungler, B. (1999). Nursing Research: Principles and Method, 6th ed.; Philadephia:
Lippincott Company

Loizos, P. (2008) Iron In The Soul: Displacement, Livelihood and Health in Cyprus. Berghahn Books
New York

Kumar, R. (2005) Research Methodology: A step-by-step Guide for Beginners.

Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert? American psychologist, 34(2), 151.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (2000). Conditioned emotional reactions. 1920. The American
Psychologist, 55(3), 313.

Beazely, H., Bessell, S., Ennew, J. and Waterson, R. (2006). What children say. Results of comparative
research on the physical and emotional punishment of children in Southeast Asia and the pacific,
2005. Bangkok, Thailand: Save the Children Sweden.

Plotnik R, H Kouyomdjian (2010) , Introduction to Psychology, Belmont CA , Wadsworth Publishing

Shaffer D (2010) , Developmental Psychology : Childhood and Adolescence, San Fransisco, Cengage
Learning

Virginia Morrow. (2008). Ethical dilemmas in research with children and young people about their
social environments, Children’s geographies. 6:1, 49-61, DOI: 10.1080/147332807017911918.