Is the way forward for social psychologists to refine their scientific methods or reconsider their concepts of science in relation to the nature of their subject matter?

Many psychologists argue that psychology is modelled on the natural sciences such as biology, physics and chemistry, as the use of systematic methods and experiments are an essential part of formulating and testing theories. However, questions concerning the scientific validity of psychology are constantly raised, and perhaps this is understandable because of the different methods used, the nature of the subject matter, and the involvement and sometimes participation of the psychologist. In this light many would question whether it is necessary to place such emphasis on the need to be scientific, and whether the further development of scientific methods will actually be advantageous to psychology.

Social psychology is viewed as being ‘the scientific study of human social behaviour’, and encompasses many different schools of thought. Through the study of cognitive processes, and the investigation of motivation and behaviour, it has developed by studying the effects of these processes on the individual in a social context (Wetherell, 1996, p.16). For much social psychological research, the experiment is the favoured method of investigation. Experimental social psychology is more associated with a scientific approach as it purposefully adopts intellectually rigorous methods for understanding human social behaviour.

One of the great strengths of this method is that it enables a systematic exploration of an effect and of what its cause might be. The basis for this premise is largely dependent on three assumptions. Firstly that social behaviour is describable and measurable. Secondly it doesn’t occur spontaneously or randomly, but is caused by a range of internal and external factors. Thirdly, the relationship between these factors and behaviour are regular. These relationships are only to be discovered through carefully controlled empirical investigations and experiments (McGhee, 1996, p.7).

The opponents of scientific psychological study would argue that the problem with such rigid investigations is that people are individuals, and are shaped and influence by their social context. In this way it makes it very difficult to study complex interactions and group dynamics, especially over a period of time. However, psychologists in this area go to great lengths to ensure that the same processes occur in other contexts and conditions. An influential experimental series of studies which is congruent with this argument was conducted by Jones et al (1979).

The studies were designed to investigate the theory that people often view outcomes as caused by the person rather that the situation or context in which they occur, subjects were asked to read an essay or listen to a tape recording of a speech allegedly written by another student. The experimenters varied two speeches with attitudes either for or against racial segregation, and the other concerning the degree of choice the hypothetical student had about which attitude to adopt. Jones et al found that even when the subjects were informed that the views given in the speeches were only given on the instructions of the experimenter, the subjects still inferred that the student had

attitudes which were compatible with those they were told to have (Lalljee, 1996, p.107).

In order to validate the experiment, various steps were taken to ensure that other factors could not determine the outcome. The subject matter was changed in other studies, such as attitudes towards using marijuana, and medical care etc. It was found that that comparable results were obtained no matter what the subject matter. In addition Jones and his colleagues systematically manipulated the quality, strength and persuasiveness of the essays, but these made little difference to the observer’s attributions. The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

attitudes which were compatible with those they were told to have (Lalljee, 1996, p.107).

Psychodynamics, which is akin to social psychology, also has regard for scientific research and investigation. Freud’s study of psychoanalysis involved the rigorous collection of data, which entailed a great deal of study and interpretation. The generation of his many theoretical ideas were followed up by further observations (Thomas, 1996, p.287). However, it has been argued that psychoanalysis does pose a major problem of replication. One wonders if it can ever be possible to get identical results on different occasions. No two people have identical experiences, and share identical thoughts, feelings and emotions. The psychologist, Popper (1979), has endorsed this argument by claiming that psychoanalysis is a ‘pseudo-science’, in comparison to the work of Einstein. The work of Freud can’t be refuted, and refutation, according to popper, was an essential feature of the science practised by Einstein. (Devall, 1996, p.123).

However, when investigating group psychodynamics, people in this context can experience the same feelings and thoughts. The psychiatrists, Bion, worked with the army during the 2nd World War, and his work centred upon the group as an entity and what happens in unstructured groups. His studies found that there appears two parallel agendas, that of the conscious work group, and that of the unconscious group whose concerns are with the emotional needs of the group (Morgan & Thomas, 1996, p.72).

Studies of this type gave psychology credibility as governments and social institutions valued its scientific basis for findings. However, from this new influential power came some criticisms regarding the moral and ethical objectives of those who commission research. It has been argued that social psychologists who are employed by the military or industry, are guided by the values and goals of their paymasters. It cannot be ignored that since the end of the 2nd World War, the study of societal issues has declined, in favour of theory, measurement and methodology. Many observers have commented that the financial incentives to develop theories and techniques in the laboratory have contributed to this shift (Sapsford, 1996, p162).

Other areas of social psychology have rebelled against scientific methodology, instead placing an onus on the individual in context. Social constructionists argue for a ‘merged view’ of the person and their social context and the role of social science is dominant in this perspective. Its theories are developed by process of reasoning and

argument and the focus of study is centred upon the person, consciousness, mind and the self, which are social through and through. The social world, history, practices and divisions should therefore be at the heart of psychological investigations (Wetherell & Maybin, 1996, p.222).

Social constructionists argue that people are dependent on their sense of self and their social and cultural situations. Scientific research cannot fully provide explanations and rationale, since people are continually evolving and their context is continually changing. Scientific evaluation tends to suggest that interactions are fundamental and universal, but cross-cultural differences need to be studied and evaluated in isolations. Schieffelin and Ochs (1983) conducted a studies of mother-baby interactions, and suggested that many cultures see an infant as being a social being, and the mother’s role as being to take the perspective of the child. Indeed experimental studies such as those conducted by Brazelton (1974,1991) have attempted to code behaviours of infants and mothers in order to present explanations of actions such as why things go wrong in the early days of their relationships. However, whilst the findings may provide valid explanations in western society, they do not apply universally to all cultures. Schieffelin and Ochs studied Kaluli people in Papua New Guinea, and discovered that babies as seen as helpless and unable to understand what is being said to them. Utterances and eye contact are rarely give to the infants, and mothers normally hold their children facing outwards to the social group. In this way scientific study is not able to account for these types of interaction, since the children do not appear to be psychologically affected (Dallos, 1996, p.116)..

Humanistic and experiential social psychology also concentrate on lived experiences. It centres upon personal agency and conscious awareness, and rather than analysing people from an external standpoint, psychologists try to work from the perspective of people themselves (Stevens, 1996, p27). People are thought to actively construct their actions through the meanings they attribute to them. In this way social psychology does not attribute its validity to science. It claims that the openness of social life should be studied rather than concentrating on experimental control. Complex relationships which are built up over time should therefore be centred upon (Wetherell, McGhee, Stevens, 1996, p.12) .

Studies conducted in this perspective have identified that conscious awareness enables us to be intrinsically involved in the process of existence, and we are aware of the passage of time, moving towards old age, and eventual death. We are also aware of our feelings, motivations and influences, and through this we are actually creating the kind of person we become. Psychologists in this field acknowledge the valuable work that has been undertaken from the traditional sciences, but they believe that they only serve to give us a better understanding of our experiences of being and living in the world (Stevens, 1996, p.10).

In this light, experimental psychology is viewed as constraining our freedom by presenting us with a determinist account of human behaviour. Psychologists working in this area believe that scientific thought has undermined the framework of the meaning in life. However, the psychologist, George Kelly, has brought together the

value of lived experiences together with cognitive evaluation. His Personal Construct Theory consists of bipolar dimensions, which constitute of classifications of our own experiences of the world. Knowing how constructs are related, enables us to understand why a person thinks or behaves in a certain way. Kelly himself acknowledged the parallels between his theory and scientific theory. He believed that people act as ‘scientists’ as we are constantly making theories and hypotheses about what the world is like and then we test them out. Scientists achieve ‘models’ of the world and we all therefore behave with respect to our worlds as if we are scientists (Stevens, 1996, p165).

In this way it must be argued whether any investigation of psychology can be completely detached from a scientific approach. Experiential and social constructionist perspectives would actively seek separation from the label of ‘science’ and refute any suggestion that their investigations are in any way scientific. However, one wonders if any study of the human mind, itself a biological function, can be anything but scientific. Even if the findings from observations and narrative accounts are not counted or categorized, the findings are in many ways compared with other research in order for similarities and patterns to be ascertained.

If social psychology continues to improve its scientific methodology its scientific value will undoubtedly improve. However, as well as refining its experiments and rigorous study, other arguments over its credibility must also be overcome. Psychological methods produce data which cannot easily be measured. The thoughts in people’s minds cannot be directly observed, Feelings and actions are a mental and sometimes physical experience, and therefore the psychologist has to find ways of assessing what the experience is like and when it’s occurring. If interviewing or observing the psychologist must use their own judgement to determine what the subject is thinking or feeling. It could be argued that data which is open to interpretation does not have scientific value. Social constructionists would emphasize that evaluation is present throughout the practice of science. In natural science, as much as in social science, the personal beliefs of the scientist and the ideologies of the culture play a part in what is discovered (Devalle, 1996,p.123).

Also, It has been argued that the presence of psychologists in experimental environments may effect the outcome of any experiment. A subject could say something or behave in a certain manner because they know that the psychologist is recording everything they do. However, in the same vein one might suggest that Scientists can unwittingly disturb what is being measured, just by the very act of measurement.

In modern society statements are not believed to be true simply because someone has said that they are true. A statement is judged through reason and evidence, and as with the natural sciences, psychology is also judged on the basis of experiment or observation. It is through these procedures that social psychology is given credibility, and it is because of its credibility that social psychology has value and institutional power. Systematic collection of data, testing and categorization provides a scientific basis for social psychology and has proved invaluable in real world issues.

References

Dallos. R (1996), ‘Creating Relationships: Patterns of Actions and Beliefs’ in Miell. D & Dallos. R (1996) Ed., Social Interaction and Personal Relationships, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Devalle. D (1996), ‘Da Capo: Science and Social psychology’, in Sapsford, R(1996) Ed., Issues for social psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Lalljee. M (1996), ‘The interpreting self: an experimentalist perspective’, in Stevens, R (1996) Ed., Understanding the self, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Morgan. H & Thomas. K (1996), ‘A psychodynamic perspective on group processes’ in Wetherell, M (1996) Ed., Identities groups and social issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Murphy.J (1996), ‘Using Social Psychology’, in Sapsford, R (1996), Issues for social psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Sapsford. R& Dallos. R (1996), ‘Resisting Social Psychology’, in Sapsford, R (1996) Ed., Issues for social psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Stevens. R (1996), ‘Introduction: making sense of the person in a social world’, in Stevens. R (1996) Ed., Understanding the self, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Stevens. R (1996), ‘The reflexive self: an experiential perspective’, in Stevens, R (1996) Ed., Understanding the self, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Wetherell. M & Maybin. J (1996), ‘The distributed self: a social constructionist perspective’, in Stevens, R (1996) Ed., Understanding the self, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Wetherell. M, McGhee. P & Stevens. R (1996), ‘Defining Social Psychology’, in Sapsford, R (1996) Ed., Issues for social psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University.