We have reflected on how a scientific approach can restrain hidden biases. We have seen how case studies, naturalistic observations, and surveys help us describe behavior. We have noted that correlational studies assess the association between two factors, showing how well one predicts the other. We have examined the logic underlying experiments, which use controls and random assignment to isolate the effects of independent variables on dependent variables.

Hopefully, you are now prepared to understand what lies ahead and to think critically about psychological matters. But before we plunge in, let’s address some common questions about psychology’s ethics and values.

22

Many psychologists study nonhuman animals because they find them fascinating. They want to understand how different species learn, think, and behave. Psychologists also study animals to learn about people. We humans are not like animals; we are animals, sharing a common biology. Animal experiments have therefore led to treatments for human diseases—insulin for diabetes, vaccines to prevent polio and rabies, transplants to replace defective organs.

Humans are more complex. But the same processes by which we learn are present in rats, monkeys, and even sea slugs. The simplicity of the sea slug’s nervous system is precisely what makes it so revealing of the neural mechanisms of learning.

Sharing such similarities, should we respect rather than experiment on our animal relatives? The animal protection movement protests the use of animals in psychological, biological, and medical research. Out of this heated debate, two issues emerge.

The basic question: Is it right to place the well-being of humans above that of other animals? In experiments on stress and cancer, is it right that mice get tumors in the hope that people might not? Should some monkeys be exposed to an HIV-like virus in the search for an AIDS vaccine? Humans raise and slaughter 56 billion animals a year (Worldwatch Institute, 2013). Is this use and consumption of other animals as natural as the behavior of carnivorous hawks, cats, and whales?

If we decide to give human life top priority, a second question emerges: What safeguards should protect the well-being of animals in research? One survey asked animal researchers if they supported government regulations protecting research animals. Ninety-eight percent supported such protection for primates, dogs, and cats. And 74 percent also backed regulations providing for the humane care of rats and mice (Plous & Herzog, 2000). Many professional associations and funding agencies already have such guidelines. British Psychological Society (BPS) guidelines call for housing animals under reasonably natural living conditions, with companions for social animals (Lea, 2000). American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines state that researchers must ensure the “comfort, health, and humane treatment” of animals and minimize “infection, illness, and pain” (APA, 2002). Most universities screen research proposals, often through an animal care ethics committee, and laboratories are regulated and inspected.

Animals have themselves benefited from animal research. After measuring stress hormone levels in samples of millions of dogs brought each year to animal shelters, research psychologists devised handling and stroking methods to reduce stress and ease the dogs’ move to adoptive homes (Tuber et al., 1999). Other studies have helped improve care and management in animals’ natural habitats. By revealing our behavioral kinship with animals and the remarkable intelligence of chimpanzees, gorillas, and other animals, experiments have led to increased empathy and protection for other species. At its best, a psychology concerned for humans and sensitive to animals serves the welfare of both.

What about human participants? Does the image of white-coated scientists seeming to deliver electric shocks trouble you? Actually, most psychological studies are free of such stress. Blinking lights, flashing words, and pleasant social interactions are more common. Moreover, psychology’s experiments are mild compared with the stress and humiliation often inflicted in the media “experiments” of reality TV shows. In one episode of The Bachelor, a man dumped his new fiancée on camera, at the producers’ request, for the woman who earlier had finished second (Collins, 2009).

Occasionally, though, researchers do temporarily stress or deceive people. This happens only when they believe it is unavoidable. Some experiments won’t work if participants know everything beforehand. (Wanting to be helpful, they might try to confirm the researcher’s predictions.)

The APA and Britain’s BPS ethics codes urge researchers to

As noted earlier in relation to nonhuman animals, most universities have ethics committees that screen research proposals and safeguard participants’ well-being.

23

Values affect what we study, how we study it, and how we interpret results. Consider our choice of research topics. Should we study worker productivity or worker morale? Sex discrimination or gender differences? Conformity or independence? Values can also color “the facts”—our observations and interpretations. Sometimes we see what we want or expect to see (FIGURE 1.5).

Even the words we use to describe traits and tendencies can reflect our values. Labels describe and labels evaluate. One person’s rigidity is another’s consistency. One person’s “undocumented worker” is another’s “illegal alien.” One person’s faith is another’s fanaticism. One country’s enhanced interrogation techniques become torture when practiced by an enemy. Our words—firm or stubborn, careful or picky, discreet or secretive—reveal our attitudes.

Applied psychology also contains hidden values. If you defer to “professional” guidance—on raising children, achieving self-fulfillment, coping with sexual feelings, getting ahead at work—you are accepting value-laden advice. A science of behavior and mental processes can help us reach our goals, but it cannot decide what those goals should be.

Others have a different worry about psychology: that it is becoming dangerously powerful. Might psychology, they ask, be used to manipulate people? Knowledge, like all power, can be used for good or evil. Nuclear power has been used to light up cities—and to demolish them. Persuasive power has been used to educate people—and to deceive them. Although psychology does indeed have the power to deceive, its purpose is to enlighten. Every day, psychologists explore ways to enhance learning, creativity, and compassion. Psychology speaks to many of our world’s great problems—war, climate change, prejudice, family crises, crime—all of which involve attitudes and behaviors. Psychology also speaks to our deepest longings—for nourishment, for love, for happiness. And, as you have seen, one of the new developments in this field—positive psychology—has as its goal exploring and promoting human strengths. Many of life’s questions are beyond psychology, but even a first psychology course can shine a bright light on some very important ones.