Ethical Problems in the Field of Positive Psychology - Essay Example

? Ethical Problems in the Field of Positive Psychology s Ethical Problems in the Field of Positive Psychology I. Deception in Positive Psychology Whether it is positive or social, psychological research may not be as easy as it seems due to various rules of experimentation, which researchers need to make sure the study abides by. Psychological researches have an ethical code that contributes in enhancing or diminishing the validity and reliability of its findings. Ethical guidelines are an essential factor in a research and a violation usually turns out to be extremely detrimental not only to the researcher but can have debilitating repercussions on the study subjects as well. Moreover, it raises questions regarding the experimenter’s credibility and jeopardizes his or her reputation as a professional. (Rubin, 1985) Informed consent, legality, honesty, integrity and protection of human subjects are some of the ethics that a study needs to incorporate to validate the findings. Out of all the aforementioned issues, deception of human participants have been the most frequent and controversial ethical breach in psychological research. For a study to progress smoothly, attainment of free and informed consent of the participant is essential before the clinician puts them through an experimental procedure. However, in certain circumstances, psychologists withhold information or misinform the study subjects in order to increase their compliance to the experimenter’s demands and their willingness to participate in the study. In mid-19th century; when psychological researches and theories were only gaining momentum, there had been no real division of labor in laboratory or experimental settings. As a matter of fact, the experimenter actively participated in the study along with the subjects and even recorded his or her experiences. However, even then the sample remained restricted and there were high probability that the data contained many biases that rendered it erroneous. Additionally, positive psychology focuses primarily on helping individuals in seeking happiness rather than studying pathological behavior, hence there was a strong need to study behavior and responses in a more natural environment that can be generalized later on to the masses. In the laboratory setting outlined earlier, it is virtually impossible to deceive anyone because both subjects and the researcher had close associations with each other. However, this gave rise to significant drawbacks in the study’s findings as the experimenter and the subject knew the study all too well, hence their reactions were mentally rehearsed that created distinctions between the general consensus and the data collected through the study. That is how the concept of deception comes in to the equation, as researchers began hiding the real motive or purpose of the study so that the client acts on instinct rather becomes too focused on the behavior being studied. Clinicians and researchers have even tried to justify the use of deception in psychological studies under the pretext that it does not affect the subject behavior in the study or produce erroneous results (Bonetti, 1998). On the other hand, the above-mentioned claim was quickly countered by the economist, Hey (1998), who elaborated that deception triggers suspicion and various reservations amongst the participants. Such ill feelings in turn lead to distortion of the subject’s responses to various situations and may even tarnish the rapport between the experimenter and participant. Hey also stated that there was a vast difference between withholding information and misinforming subjects but some believe it to be the same thing in its fundamental nature. It should be noted that withholding information and misinforming participants is essentially the same thing that involves keeping the subject in the dark. Omitting out key aspects of the study may affect his or her willingness to participate in the study. Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison simulation study and Stanley Milgram’s compliance study epitomize the aspect of deceiving human subjects. The latter study involved subjects, who were told that they were going to study how memory and learning are affected by punishments. In reality, the object of the study was to explore human compliance to authority even if it meant inflicting pain on the other individuals. The study was initially inspired by the atrocities committed during the World War II and the war criminals had defended themselves by saying that they were ‘just acting out on orders’. (Milgram, 1963) The two subjects assumed the role of a teacher and a learner; who was in fact a confederate of the experimenter. The teacher was required to ask a list of questions and electrocute the other ‘learner’ with increasing intensity for every wrong answer. Although, the learner was not being electrocuted and the screams were pre-recorded, but the participants were oblivious to this and actually believed that they were administering high-voltage shock to another person. The study provided insight and brought some shocking revelations to surface when almost 65% of the subjects continued to the highest degree of the shock that was 450 Volts. The sample acted upon the directions given by the experimenter, who had assumed an authoritative position in the subject’s eyes. (Milgram, 1963) Even if they asked for the experiment to be halted they were prompted to continue with the procedure. The study garnered a lot of criticism and even though, Milgram continued to follow-up on the subjects and provided them with counseling to make sure that they came to no harm, but the study caused the participants to go through intense emotional trauma. During the experiments, the subjects exhibited dramatic responses from crying spells to full-blown laughing fits. Almost every single participant exhibited signs of stress and anxiety, yet a vast percentage of subjects actually obeyed the commands of an authoritative figure. (McLeod, 2008) On the other hand, the former experiment conducted by Zimbardo was meant to study how well people internalize their roles of guards and prisoner in a prison setting, and what norms do they display when they are assigned to such roles. Though, Zimbardo had initially obtained a signed consent form the participants, who were gathered using a newspaper advert. The main issue arose with the wordings used in the advert, which hinted that the participants were not aware of the exact nature of the experiment (Zimbardo, 1999). Furthermore, the prisoner participants were unexpectedly arrested from their homes for minor crimes and then subsequently placed in their mock prison without facing a proper trial. The study produced some astonishing results and was halted within five days as prisoners showed signs of emotional distress and began internalizing the degradation. On the other hand, the guards exhibited what came to be known as the ‘pathology of power’; which meant that they were misusing their authority over the prisoners because there weren’t any consequences for them (Zimbardo, 1999). Though, it has been confirmed that the subject participation in the study was consensual, but the main deception arose from the unexpected and humiliating arrest of the participants. Moreover, the dramatic response from both groups has made the study unethical and quite infamous. All psychological studies vie for statistical and subjective accuracy in their findings. They make sure that study replicates real-life situations and responses. Deception may enable the experimenter to generate a natural response from the subject but manipulating the subject is a tedious task and any inconsistency can subsequently break down the experiment completely. Moreover, in the light of the aforementioned examples deception may give rise to distress and negative feedbacks from the participants. Scholars continue to oscillate in their opinion regarding the negative and positive aspects of deception, even though deception has a lot of negative connotations attached with it. The positive aspects of deception often root from the fact that despite all the ethical ramifications involved in deception, participants do not always respond negatively. Even if the subjects are told about the deception at the end of the study, there were a few exceptions that welcomed the idea to gain insight in to their psychological framework. The latter case was further supported by Christensen (1988), who reported that some participants had responded optimistically when they found out that they had been deceived in the experiment because the knowledge that they gained was more valuable. The said participants claimed that the deceptive measures were indeed helpful in helping them understand their psyche better and they could now view their emotional behavior from a different perspective. These reactions opened up a new side to the argument and it was concluded that participants are not actually perturbed by the exact nature of manipulation in the study, but the word deception itself has such negative connotations attached with it that causes the participants to react disapprovingly to it without, actually viewing the bigger picture. It may seem to the contrary, but deception becomes vital in the field of positive psychology. It enables a mental health professional to study the behavior in a more natural environment or their automatic response to a particular situation. Freedom of choice is indeed an inalienable right of any individual, but psychological studies are also meant to educate the masses regarding key issues such as stress and management or to understand the dynamics of their societal roles. Hence, it becomes necessary to hide the real purpose of the study or misinform the subjects to coax them in to producing realistic responses. Psychologists further justify the act of deception, if the ethical violation does not produce any long-term affect on the subject’s mental or physiological health. Positive psychology is primarily concerned with the prosperity of human beings whereas, philosophy is concerned with how human beings define and try to achieve prosperity. Therefore, the subject of ethics and the dynamics involved in its violation is often seen from the perspective of Aristotle’s ethical theory. II. Theoretical explanation The field of positive psychology is closely associated with philosophy because both disciplines study emotions and how they are related to the concept of happiness. Before delving further in to the relationship of ethical psychology and philosophy, the substance of the prose will first highlight the basics of Aristotle’s theory. It is one of his best works up to date, a comprehensive study of ethics that has been compiled in ten books titled “The Nicomachean Ethics”. According to Aristotle, ethics are an innate set of beliefs that an individual develops as a result of good upbringing and a sound education that reinforces ethical beliefs and actions defining the individual’s personality. Education leads to proper maturation as an adult that enables one to become a conscientious person. The premise of the theory is simple that there is a purpose behind every individual’s existence and finding happiness is their natural or inherent pursuit in life. Aristotle defined happiness as a state characterized by the realization of an individual’s wisdom or rationality that determines all of his actions. He further theorized that wisdom naturally indicates a person to make decisions that would enable the individual to attain spiritual fulfillment; often referred to as the ‘good’ by Aristotle. The Nicomachean ethics further bases its findings on the assumption that all actions and behaviors are aimed at the good. Good is further classified into ‘chief good’ and ‘common good’, the former being the primary desire of all human beings taking the form of wealth, honor, respect and pleasure, whereas the latter refers to moral virtue. As it has been established that all human beings are happiness or pleasure-seeking organism, they will make ethical decisions because virtuosity is equal to the achievement of spiritual peace and happiness. “The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind.”(Aristotle. b.1, ch.7) It is philosophized that the soul provides one with the wisdom to tackle various predicaments; hence it will always guide man towards the greater good. Acquiring moral virtue and chief good enable an individual to achieve a state of complete happiness or as Aristotle called it a state of “Eudemonia”; which means happiness or well-being in worldly affairs. The happiness is not only making the righteous choice but it also involves the individual striving to achieve arete or excellence in conduct or intellectual beliefs. As Aristotle speculates that all educated human beings are naturally programmed to make the right choice or action, hence deception or misinforming participants becomes vastly unnecessary. This aspect will be further examined in the light of Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s study to explore whether or not the subjects had reacted similarly, if they hadn’t been deceived. Both studies are as infamous as they are informative and enlightening; eliminating deception means that the participants in Milgram’s research was based on obedience to authority and the fact that they were not really electrocuting any real person. Now that the participants are fully aware of the nature of the study, the laboratory setting failed to emulate a real-life situation that Milgram wanted to study. As the subjects knew that they were not really harming another individual and were just meant to act out, most participants would have acted out on their moral behavior as Aristotle predicted. The findings of the study would become invalid, because it does not study the influence of authority on the subject’s behavior but rather their personal choice when it comes to inflicting pain on another individual. It results in a similar situation for Zimbardo as the subjects have been debriefed about their arrest and their various roles that is why the mock prison setup is never truly internalized by the sample. The subjects would comply more with the guards because they know that there is no reality to their situation as a result, eliminating deception would again invalidate the study. The prime reason for the study was to understand human behavior in such circumstances to pave way for the psycho-education of the masses. It is a known fact that when an individual possesses the prior knowledge regarding a particular situation, their anxiety levels are lowered. The study titled ‘the good Samaritans’ conducted by Pilliavin et.al based on the helping behavior is also a fundamental example in exhibiting the true nature of people and their altruistic tendencies. The study itself was prompted by the rape and murder of a young woman, who had been heard screaming for help for thirty minutes but none of the people actually volunteered to help her or even check to see the reason of the commotion. The study involved an actor assuming the roles of a drunkard and cripple to see how many people actually offer to help the individual, who is ostensibly in a lot of distress. (Pilliavin, 1969) However, unfortunately the study would become completely useless, if it hadn’t deceived the participants. The study was meant to incorporate an element of surprise into the study that would engender a realistic response from the subject. From a philosophical perspective, unpredictability is a key aspect of all the events that transpire in an individual’s life, therefore a debriefing would only give the participants various cues as to how they are supposed to behave in a particular situation that would be more or less like a well-rehearsed play. Under such circumstances, it is honesty and truthfulness in the experiment that distorts the human behavior and diminishes the value of the study. As we have seen, the presence of deception was essential in steering the research in to the desired direction. By removing the deceptive elements, the study is like leading the subjects to the desired or the ideal behavior. In the good Samaritans study, had the people known that the truth behind the study, their reactions would have been completely different than what was recorded. The people who offered to help were largely male, and the sample were more likely to offer help to the crippled person rather than the intoxicated one; an aspect of the study that hinted at the rampant disapproval of alcoholism and the judgmental nature of the people that also acted as the basis of their actions. Thus, Aristotle’s theory of ethics becomes completely irrelevant to the case of deception in positive psychology. There is a striking distinction between warning a person before hitting them and hitting them suddenly, hence the analogy is drawn to understand how deception actually works in positive and it is the reaction to spontaneous stimuli that is to be studied. Nicomachean ethics have already met with plenty of disagreement from positive psychologists. Barbara Fredrickson is one such example, she argued that though happiness is considered to be the fundamental pursuit of human beings by Aristotle, but individuals have other aspiration beyond happiness. The pursuit of happiness is in fact a means of achieving other great things as positive emotions such as elation or euphoria enhances self-esteem that enables the individual to broaden their scope and intellect, in order to develop more constructive traits. Hence, positive psychology focuses more on factors that pave way for growth and maturation as the primary goals of an individual. Nevertheless, the theory still has plenty of strengths and weaknesses that will be discussed in greater detail in following parts of the prose. III. Strength and weaknesses Aristotle’s theory is the first known work on ethics that is why it provides a proper outline to study human behavior and psyche. Despite the complications in the text, Aristotle provides a rough framework to enable people to assess their conduct and ethical beliefs. It also answers some of the most common-sense questions regarding the impact of education on perceptive abilities and the mental growth of the individual. Aristotelian philosophy was backed up by practical observations of the human behavior. Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics has great correspondence with basic needs and desires that provide a plausible explanation and motives behind most of the actions of people. Nicomachean ethics were drawn from the observation of the-then society that enables experimenters to draw comparisons and assess the degree to which the desires and wants have changed and the affect it has had on the human psyche. Being the first philosophical explanation of happiness and human aspiration, Aristotle’s theory of ethics has made its niche in psychology for laying down the groundwork in understanding and designing experiments. Nicomachean ethics has indeed paved way for research into positive psychology and most importantly, it provides a degree of predictability to experimenters when carrying out an experiment. Proponents of Aristotelian philosophy have commented: “. . . if there is no real prospect of an ordinary scientific or simple empirical theory of all of action and deliberation as such, then the thing we should look for may be precisely what Aristotle provides--namely a conceptual framework which we can apply to particular cases, which articulates the reciprocal relations of an agent's concern and his perception of how things objectively are in the world; and a schema of description which relates the complex ideal the agent tries in the process of living his life to make real to the form that the world impresses by way of opportunity and by way of limitation upon that idea”(Rorty, 1980, p. 237) In other words, it is an established fact that the sole purpose of Nicomachean ethics is to provide a “conceptual framework”. Despite the potency of Aristotelian perspective, there are still plenty of loop-holes in practical application of the theory. Even exploring deception in psychological studies from Aristotle’s perspective leads to some very contradicting conclusions that are highlighted above. Moreover, the greatest drawback of Nicomachean theory of ethics is that it was conceived a long time ago because of its findings may not be applicable anymore and are subjected to change overtime. Human behavior is extremely volatile, and although it has been established that all human beings function with a common objective of attaining happiness, it should be further noted that happiness itself is a subjective experience that people may define differently. Even Aristotle has agreed that people associate various items and notions with happiness. For instance, certain people have equated wealth and material good with happiness; some have associated beauty with happiness; some have associated love with happiness; some associate honor while others believe that only altruism can help them find happiness and contentment in their lives. Just like all human beings have made different associations with the concept of happiness, they all have different objectives of attaining it which may not be ethical or altruistic in nature. The theory postulates that every individual is meant to perform a specific purpose or function in their lives and performing them to the best of one’s abilities will bring them closer to attaining happiness. It is a highly ambiguous part of the theory because there is no way to tell what the real purpose of an individual’s existence may be. Aristotle bases his belief on pure assumption that an individual is endowed with an innate sense of purpose that automatically delegates a person a role or a set of tasks that they need to perform, and this belief is generalized. Aristotle further assumes that the fulfillment of that purpose automatically results in the individual seeking happiness. Thus, Aristotle claims that it is a chain of activities that determines the individual’s happiness level. It starts off with the individual performing their respective functions well that can only be done if the individual works according to their logical reasoning; logical reasoning is the language of an individual’s soul that instinctively means acting in a moral or virtuous manner. It disregards extraneous variables and views an individual in complete isolation. It does not take the influences of authority into account that is known for distorting the value system and restricts an individual freedom of choice, as it was seen in Milgram’s study. In addition, Zimbardo’s study assessed how the assignment of authority to an individual can put him in a position where he is likely to misuse it. Therefore, a moral or ethical system is only valid until the individual is given authority or power. Which brings another drawback to surface that it views individuals in the light of theories and hypotheses that makes it very easy to predict the most natural behavior of the of the subjects. Aristotle completely ignores the possibility of individual differences that may cause significant variations in the result. According to Aristotelian viewpoint, a good educational and familial background is decisive and essential in enabling an individual to make the right and virtuous choice. Zimbardo’s study consisted of young male college students, who had volunteered to participate in the study. Their profiles described each subject as Caucasian, mentally and physically fit, and they all belonged to middle class families. Yet, when they were assigned to their respective roles of guards and prisoners they all responded in a dramatic fashion. Which means it is not the perception of person himself that affects how he plays his role in the society. As a matter of fact, it is the situational attribution or in other words, how a person is perceived by their peers around him that actually shapes his or her identity. Besides the society’s role, Aristotelian philosophy does not take gender differences in to account. All his findings and philosophical arguments are from a masculine point of view, thus it has no relevant applicability to females or their roles in the society. The latter can be attributed to the fact that, Rome had been a vastly patriarchal society where men dominated key positions. Since, women’s role was restricted to domestic setting; as a result the existence of women was primarily seen as boon to mankind therefore, Aristotle’s philosophy is not really misogynistic but in line with the Roman societal structure, where the women’s role in society was not as vast as it is today. A woman was only seen as a child bearer and manager of the household that was believed to be her sole purpose in life. This in fact is another deficiency of the theory that makes it very hard to make generalizations, as positive psychology goes hand in hand with modern society hand takes the behavioral variations of both genders in to account. Moreover, Aristotelian perspective also deals with a lot of abstract beliefs such as honor, altruism, pleasure and happiness. In a world that is characterized by rapid technological growth and media expansion, happiness has been vastly equated with material wealth rather than honor or altruistic ambitions. Therefore, such distinctions in behavior and priorities are to be noted before carrying out studies. Especially in positive psychology, as it deals with the study of prosperity. Hence, an experimenter needs to possess the prior knowledge regarding the ever-changing demands of the people. In a media-driven society, people have now begun placing a greater value on material possessions and most people put on fake personas that need to be broken down in order to generate valid results. That is why experimenters resort to unethical means to get the desired outcomes. IV. Conclusion In the light of the aforementioned argument, Nicomachean ethics provide a very conventional outlook on the subject of happiness and human desires. Modern society has come a long way therefore, most of the philosophical discoveries have no real practical application to the present day society that continues to evolve with the passage of each minute. The deficiencies of the ethics clearly outweigh its strengths; thus, it does not really provide any valid solution to the use of deception in studies. This is fundamentally because people have changed over time along with their value systems and ethics. Aristotelian view has held its appeals amongst traditionalists and people who believe in establishing individualistic ethos; personal credibility or strengthen character in order to consolidate their place in the society. In conclusion, Aristotelian perspective is a plausible theory to establish understanding of liberal studies but in lags behind in practicality. His ethics further stigmatizes and completely disregards that possibility of the existence of ‘grey areas’ that nothing in life is either good or bad; people can neither be complete monsters nor gods. Hence, in the field of positive psychology, deception is somewhat essential provided it does not bring the subject to any harm. (Johnston, 1997) Bibliography Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. W.D.Ross. Oxford: Claredon Press. Web. 2008 Bonetti, Shane. Experimental economics and Deception. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1998. Print. Christensen, Larry. Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1988. Print. Hey, John D. Experimental economics and Deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 1998. Print. Johnston, Ian. “lecture on Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics”. Vancouver Island University. Web. 1997 McLeod, Saul. Simply Psychology; Milgram. Web. 2007.  Retrieved27 March 2012, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html Milgram, Stanley. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963. Print. Pilliavin, Irving M et.al. Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon. University of Pennsylvania, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1969. Print. Rorty, Amelie. Essays on Aristotle’s ethics. University of California Press, 1980. P.p 237. Rubin, Zick. Amelioration of deception and Harm in psychological research. Journal of Personality and social psychology. 1985. Print. Zimbardo, Philip G. Stanford Prison Experiment”. Stanford University. Web. http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/35, 1999 Read More