Does Kim Kardashian really sum up everything that is wrong with modern society? The psychological perspective!

As a twenty-two year old, I have not quite left my need for celebrity gossip behind just yet. Indeed, my early morning routine consists of checking my emails, facebook, and twitter, and researching the celebrity news of the day. I am therefore constantly bombarded with the Kardashians (the Daily Mail seems somewhat obsessed with the family).

For those unfamiliar with The Kardashian empire, they are a family of reality television stars consisting of the “momanager” Kris Jenner, her olympian husband Bruce Jenner, Kourtney Kardashian, Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, and Rob Kardashian (her children from her previous marriage), and Kendall and Kylie (her children with Bruce Jenner). The show follows the ups and downs of every member of the family, providing an insight into the photoshoots, appearances, and product endorsements that they carry out, as well as the fashion lines and stores that they own. Furthermore, and most importantly, viewers see the family dynamics of the Kardashians as opposed to just “the brand”, with a real emphasis on the importance of family life.

However, due to the nature of reality television, many argue that The Kardashians symbolise everything that is wrong in society. The media often claims that the only real talent that the Kardashians have is their appearance and the fact that young girls are subjected to this suggests that we live in a society where young people are taught that you must be attractive in order to be successful.

An article that I read this morning in The Daily Mail supports this opinion, with the headmistress of a private girls school arguing that “almost everything that is wrong with Western society today can be summed up in that one symbolic photo of Miss Kim Kardashian on the front of Zoo magazine”. She adds that “the descent of Western civilisation can practically be read into every curve, of which, you will note, there are indeed many”.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161861/Does-Kim-Kardashian-really-sum-thats-wrong-British-society-The-head-leading-girls-boarding-school-thinks-so.html

There are several things that need to be considered here, in both moral and psychological terms, the first being the notion that in order to be successful you must be attractive. One would hope that this would not be the case and merely the media blowing the role of attractivenes out of proportion. However, many psychologists have studied this idea, with somewhat worrying findings emerging from the research conducted. Gilmore, Beehr, and Love (2011) investigated the impact of attractiveness on decisions made in interviews for jobs, finding that physical attractiveness had a significant influence on employment decisions. Furthermore, Frieze, Olson, and Russell (1991) found that later on in work lives, attractive males earned an average of $2600 more for each unit of attractiveness, whilst for females it was $2150 more. These findings suggest that even in the lives of non-celebrities, attractiveness still plays an important role in how successful one is.

This raises the fundamental question of whether this is a reflection of the celebrity obsessed culture in which we live, focussed on attractiveness rather than personal dispositions, or rather a natural response to those around us? I would argue that it is the latter due to the notion that, as human beings, we are actively seeking people who we deem to be those who will increase our own chances of success. It has been widely reported that mating success is linked with attractiveness, with researchers’ finding that attractive individuals have significantly higher numbers of sexual partners compared to their unattractive peers (Rhodes, Simmons & Peters, 2005). This idea makes sense due to the fact that we are biologically programmed to seek out a partner who indicates the presence of good genes (via attractiveness) so that we are more likely to pass superior genes to the next generation. In terms of successes in one’s career, it has been suggested that attractive people are generally more successful due to the halo effect (Asch, 1946). This is the subconscious act by employers whereby they see that the individual has a desirable trait, in this case attractiveness, and therefore assumes that all of their other features are desirable also.

Much of the evidence available points to the notion that individuals who are attractive are more successful, not due to celebrity culture, but due to the biological inbuilt tendency for humans to base opinions and desires on attractiveness. This is a bold statement; one that many may queery, but the evidence does suggest that this is the case.

In spite of this, my view is that although attractiveness does play some role in determining how successful one can be, it is only one factor and there are many others that can play an equally important role. In this example, the Kardashians are an attractive family however, they also display the work ethic, intelligence, humour, and loyalty that makes the Kardashian brand what it is. Without the Kardashian’s constant support for one another, their impressive work ethic, and business skills in running their careers, fashion labels, stores, and products, the Kardashian empire would not exist. Attractiveness alone would not be able to make the Kardashians the celebrities that they are today.

Instead of focussing on the roles of attractiveness in society, the headmistress in question should perhaps focus on the business accumen, intelligence, and ambition of this family. In my own view, attractiveness is just one factor in how successful that one can be, and without it success is still possible providing that one works hard and always strives to be the best possible versions of themselves, regardless of others.

Blog: 25/03/2011 – Potential Issues in the Testing of Drugs in Scientific Research

Scientific research strives to create a better world in which to live and further understand ways of increasing mankind’s quality of life. Medication is one way in which a person’s quality of life is improved dramatically; sometimes nearly instantly. Medication can help cure cancer (Chewning & Wiederholt, 2003), reduce the symptoms of mental illnesses such as schizophrenia (Spohn & Strauss, 1989), and combat infections (Marie et al., 1989), to name but a few. However, in order for individuals’ to be provided with medication for the treatment of ailments, this medication must first be tested to investigate its safety and success in treating the specified illness, disability, or disorder. At this point, many begin to question the ethics of such research, due to the fact that medication is firstly tested on non-human animals who do not have any choice whether to participate in such research. Furthermore, some argue that testing medication on humans is also unethical, as it can be extremely dangerous. In this blog I will argue that, despite the somewhat morally challenging ethics in drug testing in scientific research, testing on humans and non-humans is a necessary endeavour that must be carried out.

As mentioned previously, one of the main criticisms in the use of medication in scientific research is that often the first point of experimentation is performed on non-human animals. Non-human animals are not actively able to consent to experimentation and as a result, the ethics are questionable. Furthermore, many of the animals lives are spent confined to cages, living a miserable existence, and often dying or living in pain due to the drugs trials performed on them.  Indeed, the suffering of animals in experimentation was seen in the research entitled Project Nim (Terrace, Petitto, Sanders & Bever,  1979, where the vet overseeing the chimp’s welfare stated that “no animal experiments are humane”. The British Psychological Association does attempt to address these ethical issues with clear guidelines on experimenting on animals in terms of psychological investigations, i.e. that they must not be harmed and must be kept healthy and in adequate living conditions. However, medical research is firstly conducted on non-human animals before humans as a way of ensuring that the humans involved in the testing will not be harmed. Therefore, it is relatively likely that animals will be harmed in this instance.

When it comes to exploring the use of non-human animals in drugs trials, the issue that must be considered is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Although experimentation on non-human animals may be considered as cruel to some people, the sacrifice of a small number of laboratory animals is worth it for the sheer number of people with illnesses that can be helped. I have had direct experience with this conflict, with my first view of animal experimentation being that it was inhumane and cruel. Although I do still think that this is the case for skincare and cosmetic research, crucial scientific investigations that can help others is fundamental in extending and improving the lives of individuals’ who are in pain and suffering. For example, my grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s around five years ago when my grandfather passed away. It was looking extremely likely that she was going to have move from her current home into a care home, something which she became upset and distressed about. However, she is currently taking neuroleptics for her illness, which has reduced the symptoms of her anxiety and somewhat unusual behaviour. Although her memory loss is becoming more impaired, this medication has given her added time in which she can live in her own home with her pets and family around her. At some point soon it seems likely that residential care will be the action that  needs to be taken, but if it was not for the medication that she has been prescribed, that day may have come much sooner. It is this testing on non-human animals that provided my grandmother with the chance to actively enjoy the remaining years of her life without having to be confined to a home. It is therefore vital that research continues on non-human animals, ensuring that more people can be helped and more lives saved through advances in medication. My belief is that providing the animal is kept in adequate living conditions and treated humanely and with respect, animal experimentation for both drug testing and psychological testing is vital.

Another potential ethical issue of clinical drug trials is that once testing on non-human animals is complete, human participants are then recruited in order to test the drug. These participants may be individuals’ suffering from a particular ailment which this drug aims to reduce or cure, or healthy participants acting as controls or testing for potential side effects. A considerable number of ethical issues may come into play here, the first being that non-human animals are very different to humans; who is to say that one drug will affect a non-human animal the same as that of a human? This problem came into the media spotlight in 2006, where two men involved in the trial of the drug TBN1412 (designed to treat leukaemia and rheumatoid arthritis) became critically ill (Marshall, 2006). This illustrates the distinct differences between the effects of different drugs on different animal species and indicates the need to be careful in assuming that just because a drug is effective and not harmful when it comes to a non-human animal, it does not mean that the same will be the case in humans. However, these trials need to be carried out before others’ can be treated and the issue of cost and benefit comes to light in this argument again. In order to ensure that people can be treated, some sacrifices need to be made; the volunteers in drug trials are fully aware and consent to any detrimental side effects that may occur. Furthermore, the reason that the media reacted so harshly on the events in the drugs trial in 2006 is that this sort of incident is relatively uncommon. Drug trials are generally safe and every effort is put forward to protect individuals from any sort of harm.

Some would also argue that the financial incentive offered by drugs companies to participate in research could encourage people to participate in research out of desperation. Many companies offer individuals’ thousands of pounds to volunteer or drugs trials and many apply for that reason alone. This raises the moral dilemma of whether people should be offered such financial incentives for potentially dangerous trials. In answer to this criticism I would argue that safety is of paramount importance to the companies conducting this research and in the majority of cases are perfectly safe. The participant will often need to travel a significant distance for participation and will possibly have to take the time off to participate as holiday from work. This sacrifice in time and energy for the benefit of others deserves payment; it is highly unlikely that people would volunteer if there were no financial incentives and therefore payment must be given in order for these important trials to go ahead.

Another criticism of drugs testing in scientific research is the notion that many people are not offered the potentially life-saving drugs due to the amount of volunteers required and the budget of the trials. This means that individuals’ suffering from life-threatening conditions are often unable to participate due to the sheer demand of places for these trials. Furthermore, and perhaps more seriously, some patients may be given a placebo in order to compare the effects of a particular drug to the psychological aspect of knowing that you are taking medication. This means that individuals’ who could potentially benefit from this medication are given placebos, which will in most cases produce no improvement of symptoms. This raises the ethical dilemma of whether this is fair. Often drug trial suitability is also based on your location, is it fair that just because you live in a different area you are prevented from gaining potentially ground-breaking treatment? Furthermore, participants are in theory being deceived when given placebos, the ethical guideline of deception being broken in doing so. As unethical as this may seem, companies have budgets to adhere to and cannot possibly commit to accept everyone with a particular ailment in its trial. Eventually, after the testing, everyone who needs the drug should be able to access it providing that it is successful; without these trials this would not be the case. In respect to the deception taking place, researchers’ have noted that the majority of scientific investigations report deception to some degree and without this deception taking place, important findings may remain undiscovered (Slone & Hull, 2002).

Overall I believe that although there are some ethical issues in the testing of drugs in scientific research, the methods are necessary. Providing that the benefits outweigh the costs, research in both non-human animals and humans is critical in order to help and prevent individuals’ suffering from a range of illnesses, disorders, and disabilities. Scientific research should aim to help and benefit people through the most successful and non-harmful methods. Currently, this type of research is providing truly unique and beneficial findings with far more benefits than costs. If drug trials continue in this way and participants, both human and non-human, are treated with care and compassion, the moral dilemma is slight.

Links:

http://www.pec-journal.com/article/S0738-3991%2803%2900084-3/abstract

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/abn/98/4/367/

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/975.short

http://www.bps.org.uk/news/project-nim-chimps-people-and-ethics

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/206/4421/891.short

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4808836.stm

Blog: 11/03/2012 – Meta-analyses: the good, the bad, and the ugly!

Meta-analyses are often used in psychological investigations, whereby researchers’ combine the data obtained from numerous studies that focus on a collection of related research hypotheses. There are various advantages and disadvantages in this method of research, but the steps are relatively simple. Firstly, the researcher formulates the particular research hypothesis that they would like to investigate and then searches the available literature for this specific topic. The researcher can then select the appropriate studies to use for the meta-analysis, basing their decision on a variety of factors such as the quality of the research conducted, the availability of the research for comparison, and the exact procedure and research hypothesis being used in the investigation. The data obtained can then be analysed through exploratory methods and statistical analysis, with the most appropriate methods being simple regression, random effects meta-regression, or fixed-effect meta-regression. The use of meta-analyses in research can often be extremely beneficial, providing these steps are carried out correctly.

One strong example of a study conducted using a meta-analysis of other studies is the investigation of the Big Five personality factors (extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness) in relation to job performance. Several studies investigating the effect of personality variables in job performance in professionals, police, sales, managers, and semi-skilled were combined to produce a universal statistical score for these studies. The findings demonstrated that the 5-factor model of personality was a strong predictor of overall job performance and the data from all of the studies were easily combined to support this research hypothesis (Barrick & Mount, 1991). This investigation illustrates how, providing it is done correctly, results from several studies can easily be combined to produce meaningful and significant results.
The main advantage concerning the use of meta-analyses for research is the fact that the combination of the best current publications will most likely result in the best possible research that can be published. This is due to the fact that the sample size of the total studies combined is likely to be extremely high; thus resulting in the internal validity, reliability, and likelihood of a significant result to be increased. Additionally, the amount of error should be reduced due to the increased sample size.

Another advantage of using meta-analyses is that much research in the modern day is criticised for the lack of generalizability in the findings, due to the fact that because it is easier, less time-consuming, and more cost-effective, one research investigation is often carried out using the participants with very similar demographics. An example of this is current research being conducted at Bangor University, whereby many of the studies will only use Bangor University psychology undergraduates as participants. However, with meta-analyses various studies from different areas or even cultures can be combined to produce findings that can be generalised at least nationally, if not globally. Furthermore, results from different cultures can be compared and contrasted using meta-analyses in order to examine cross-cultural differences in particular phenomena. An example of this is research investigating cultural differences in cross-cultural patterns of attachment. Eight different studies conducted in different countries all used Ainsworth’s Strange Situation (Ainsworth, 1971) to examine types of attachment. Researchers’ compiled the data obtained from these studies to compare the results from different countries, finding that there were significant differences in attachment depending on one’s culture (Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988). This method of meta-analysis saved the researchers’ the time and effort of recruiting many participants from different cultures and instead were able to use others’ data to find important cross-cultural differences in attachment.

Meta-analyses are also extremely important in research due to the fact that researchers’ can come across links between studies that may have not been evident beforehand. As a result, new and interesting connections between different studies can be examined, with the potential of finding additional explanations for phenomena. This is due to the regression analysis used on the data, whereby correlations can produce far more accurate results. Furthermore, as psychology students we have become used to the seemingly endless task of searching through publications struggling to find research supporting or refuting a topic of interest. With meta-analyses, this has already been done and, as a result, students and other researchers are able to quickly find studies associated with a particular phenomenon from this research publication instead of searching through many.
However, some have argued that meta-analyses do not give an overall, universal, and generalizable view of several studies combined into one large study. This is due to the different biases and methods used in each of the studies. For example, in Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s investigation into cross cultural differences in attachment, the methodology of the strange situation may have been carried out differently in the several studies conducted. This can occur because different people have different interpretations and different researchers’ are likely to carry out methods or interpreting results differently from others. As there are a variety of studies and, as a result, a variety of researchers’ involved, it would be impossible for the scientists responsible for the meta-analysis to inherently know the differences in methods used and interpretations made. As a result, we have to assume that each study was carried out in exactly the same way. This raises the fundamental question of whether it is ethical to incorporate findings when you are unaware of the exact behaviour and biases shown by the different researchers’, as it could potentially result in incorrect correlations being made and incorrect reports being published. Indeed, Salvin (1984) notes that only reports that demonstrate reliable and descriptive methods should be included in meta-analyses.

Another problem with the use of meta-analyses is the file drawer problem, whereby often it is only studies that are significant that are published. For example, 90% of studies may support a particular null hypothesis, finding that the results are not significant, but the other 10% may refute this null hypothesis. Common sense would dictate that realistically, the research hypothesis is incorrect however, studies producing findings that are not significant are often not published by journals so the probably incorrect studies will be more likely to be published. As a result, the researchers’ conducted the meta-analysis will only have these incorrect significant findings available to them, potentially meaning that they may spend countless hours analysing incorrect data and publishing reports with Type I errors.

Another potentially serious problem with researchers’ using meta-analyses is that often the researcher is funded by a company to compile all of the research that supports their agenda. Due to the fact that the researcher is getting paid, they are far more likely to bow to the pressure from the company and ignore relevant but damaging findings, whilst selecting those that complement the company and researcher’s agenda.

Overall, there are various advantages and disadvantages to using meta-analyses in research, so one should consider very carefully whether a meta-analysis is appropriate for that particular research hypothesis. However, when used correctly with carefully selected and appropriate studies, various correlations can be seen that may not be possible with standard research, particularly in cross-cultural studies. It is therefore essential that researchers’ continue to use meta-analyses in research, providing that they are thorough in the search and analysis of studies included.
Links:

Barrick & Mount:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x/abstract

Salvin: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1175907?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47698744805987

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1130396?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47698745003687

19/02/12 Blog: Should psychologists use psychology students for research?

Many universities that offer a degree in psychology have a profound focus on research in the discipline. This is due to the money generated from such research, the provision of jobs, the desire to enhance current scientific knowledge, and to provide inspiration and excitement for students. As a result, the most common way of recruiting participants is through requesting that psychology students participate in exchange for course credits, money, or valuable experience (Sears, 1986). However, as beneficial as this may be, some have argued that the use of psychology students for psychological research is somewhat inappropriate.

The clear advantage for researchers in the use of psychology students is the pure fact that they are easily obtainable. If the university requires students to partake in studies in exchange for course credits, the majority of students will do so, thus providing a large pool of potential participants for research. This means that researchers are able to avoid the challenging task of finding outside participants, therefore saving copious amounts of time and energy. Furthermore, a researcher is far more likely to obtain a larger number of participants through recruiting psychology students, which will result in the data obtained being more reliable, internally valid, and potentially more significant. In addition, psychology students are generally (although there are exceptions) offered course credits as opposed to money for participating in experiments. If participants from outside the university were recruited they would usually be paid for doing so. Using students instead of these outside participants provides the researcher with less expenditures and an increased likelihood of being able to conduct experiments without the restrictions of resources and money.

In addition, the use of psychology students for research is not just beneficial for the researcher; it is also extremely constructive for the students themselves. Indeed, it has been reported that the student provides the researcher with data and in return, the researcher offers the student with worthwhile knowledge (Sieber & Saks, 1989).  Although none of us particularly enjoy the arduous task of completing seven hours’ worth of experiments every semester, I doubt many could argue the fact that we have been able to learn a lot through participation. Indeed, after experiencing a few studies I decided that I would like to enter into a career in psychological research. Undergraduate psychology students are able to gain important first-hand experience in the methods researchers use when undertaking research. This is vital due to the fact that students are able to gain a clearer understanding of how to conduct successful experiments, which should prove to be imperative in the research that they undertake throughout their undergraduate degree. Furthermore, partaking in research can inspire students to further study a particular notion that they found interesting, or indeed enthuse them to such an extent whereby they aspire to follow a career path in psychology.

Conversely, it has been reported that when having to participate in an experiment in order to gain course credits, psychology students can find the process “boring” and “a waste of time” (Coulter, 1986). I can identify with this point to a degree, as often experiments can prove to be time-consuming and merely involve pressing keys on a computer keyboard for what seems like days. However, the fact still remains that being involved in others’ research provides eager students with knowledge that cannot possibly be obtained through purely attending lectures.

The main argument against the use of psychology students for psychological research is the issue of demand characteristics. There is no use in denying the fact that this is a significant problem, with many students demonstrating the behaviour that they believe that the researcher would like to observe (Orne, 1962). I know from participating in previous experiments that it is often obvious what the experimenter is investigating. This leaves the student with the dilemma of whether to change their behaviour or attempt to continue in spite of the additional knowledge. I would personally like to think that in all of the circumstances where I have become aware of the aims of the study, I have continued without letting this information confound the results. However, in reality there must have been times where I have subconsciously let this information affect my behaviour in the tasks. One way of overcoming this potential obstacle is to ask the participants whether they had any suspicions during the study of what being investigating. This can be done when debriefing the participants and the researcher can choose whether to remove that participant from the data based on their answer.

Another critical issue with the use of psychology students in research is the lack of generalizability that can occur. Students are more often than not highly intelligent, from middle to high socioeconomic backgrounds, and aged between 18 and 22 (Pols, 2005). Part of the importance of research is that it can promote findings that have a significant impact on society. There are obviously studies that focus on particular clinical attributes so do not necessarily require participants who can be generalised to society as a whole, other than in situations whereby a control group is also being used. However, many studies are conducted with all individuals in society as the population that they are concerned in investigating. The use of psychology students, limits the generalizability of the study due to the boundaries in characteristics that are present. In spite of this, the current student body in the UK is changing dramatically due to the increased acceptance of students from working class homes, the levels of funding available for those from poorer backgrounds, and the steady rise of mature students studying for degrees later in life. Some would argue that these changes do not significantly increase the generalizability of the student population to the general population. However, the fact remains that many non-students who volunteer for experiments are intelligent and from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, thus meaning that there is the same problem of reduced ecological validity even with non-student participants.

In conclusion, the use of psychology students in psychological investigations can sometimes be potentially detrimental to the experiment due to demand characteristics and lack of generalizability (and perhaps the increased likelihood of hungover participants). However, the fact remains that using psychology students can be extremely beneficial for both the researcher and the student. This argument is fundamental as it could potentially change the way that we conduct research and achieve significant results, but at this current time, the use of psychology students seems to be the most ideal way to collect data. Indeed, the procedures used when testing psychology students could be tightened, for example asking the participants if they guessed what was happening in the experiment, but ultimately it the most effective use of researchers time, money, and resources, and should be welcomed and appreciated as a strong method of recruiting participants.

Psychology Blog 5/2/2012: Should the taxpayer support basic research or should the research funding emphasis be placed on applied research where the beneficiaries are clear?

In light of the gloom of the recent economy, the modern day media has become somewhat obsessed on reporting the apparent waste of money by the current government. Whether it is the row over the questionable usage of taxpayers money for MP’s expenses, or spending cuts in public services, the issue is one that causes tension and hostility among many. With the current need to be stringent in the use of taxpayers money, it raises the fundamental question of whether research that is being investigated should be funded by this method.

Clearly, scientific research is important in order to enable the human race to combat the issues that we face throughout our daily lives; without this research being conducted we may as well concede to lives where one cannot strive for improvement or hope (Herber, 2010). For example, take a recent study investigating the effects of diet carbonated drinks on one’s health. Researchers found that individuals who consume these drinks daily are 43% more likely to suffer from heart attacks and long-term liver damage, comparable only to that of chronic alcoholism (Gardener et al., 2012). These findings are significant due to the fact that not only does it acknowledge the already apparent risk of cancer associated with diet drinks, but also adds to the literature confirming that severe cardiovascular and liver problems are also linked. The publication of this report was noted in a number of newspapers, such as The Daily Mail and The Guardian, thus promoting these findings to the masses. As a result, the general public should become aware of this research and reduce their consumption of such drinks. In turn, potentially the number of people suffering from cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and liver disease should reduce, resulting in less of the taxpayer’s money being spent on issues such as these. On a more important note, these findings could save many lives, not only for the people reducing the intake of these drinks, but also through the increase in resources, time, and money for others suffering from medical conditions.

However, some would argue that the majority of individuals’ viewing this report would not change their habits even in light of the damning findings. This issue can be seen in the case of research into the effects of smoking, whereby countless studies have demonstrated the harmful effects on the human body (Ware et al., 1984; Doll, Peto, Boreham & Sutherland 2004; Warner et al., 1989). In spite of these compelling findings, around 10 million adults in Britain smoke cigarettes (Office for National Statistics, 2011). Nevertheless, the fact remains that since 1950, the number of smokers in the UK has decreased by around 40%, thus indicating that research conducted has been beneficial in preventing self-damaging behaviours (Office for National Statistics, 2011).

These previous studies highlight the important implications of scientific research and demonstrate that it is vital in order to improve our lives. Even if taxpayers money must be spent in order to investigate scientific phenomena, further money can be saved in the future as a result of the findings.

There are, however, some that would argue that undoubtedly scientific research into issues such as disease and global warming are important, but that more basic research with limited benefits to our lives should not be funded with taxpayer money. For example, researchers have found a relationship between the size of an individual’s orbital frontal cortex and the number of friends that they have. The implications for the research were noted as a clearer understanding of how humans have developed larger brains than other primates and how “mind-reading skills” are used to maintain socially significant friends (Lewis et al., 2011). Although these findings are interesting, some would consider the implications to not have an importance in the functioning of individuals and are therefore meaningless. However, this study provides an interesting insight into pre-existing literature and illustrates how merely the size of the forebrain can affect our socialising skills. This means that people with poor socialisation can potentially be helped due to the further knowledge in individuals’ capacities for social skills.

It is at this point where the problem lies with the claim that basic research with questionable implications should not be funded with taxpayer money. On reading Lewis et al.’s research, I doubted that there would be any important implications. However, on closer inspection the importance of the research in the understanding of socialisation is crucial in the applications of work with those with poor social skills and improving one’s socialisation to gain steps to becoming a fully functioning individual. It is not until the investigation is completed that the true importance of the research is realised and the prevention of funding before this research is conducted can thwart scientific attempts of bettering the world in which we live. Additionally, the most notable evidence for the argument that all research should be conducted, even if at first glance it may not provide beneficial implications, is the fact that in investing in scientific research, the government generates money. It has been estimated that for every pound that the government spends on research, at least 30 pence is added to the GDP; thus demonstrating the economic importance of scientific research.

In conclusion, all scientific research is vital and taxpayer money should be spent so that the UK is at the forefront of developing new and exciting strategies and solutions to existing problems in day to day life. Even if the full implications of a project are unclear and, on first appearance, seem to lack benefit to society, it is still vital to proceed providing that the research is ethically sound and the hypothesis generated seems plausible. This is due to the fact that it is not until research is conducted, that important benefits are clearly demonstrated, and the failure to provide funding to support this would potentially end this age of discovery. Furthermore, with money spent now on the discovery of phenomena, and the prevention and treatment of scientific and medical issues, this can add to the economy and minimise the amount of money needing to be spent in the future. This argument is important, as scientific research is a vital instrument to improve the lives of mankind and ultimately funding is needed to support this crucial endeavour.

Links:

http://blog.joerg.heber.name/2010/10/08/the-importance-of-scientific-research/

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/2787456

http://www.springerlink.com/content/b042807u865853t7/

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/6703495/reload=0;jsessionid=mSDCRxyJhrq7X9iagYNj.19

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7455/1519.short

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911005180

 

Must the need for documented ethics procedures hinder research progress?

Ethics is a constant catalyst of debate in the psychological discipline, with some arguing that the strict guidelines that psychologists are forced to adhere to can potentially result in important findings being left unknown. Indeed, there are many studies in the past that have produced important research which have benefitted the human race enormously that if done today, would not pass the ethical standards required. However, it is also important to note that the strict ethical guidelines ensure that participants are not exploited by researchers and do not suffer in the hands of psychological research.

One of the main ethical guidelines in psychological investigations is that participants must not be deceived in the experiment. This is due to the fact that it is morally wrong to deceive others, even in the name of science, and can result in the psychological discipline being subjected to criticism in treatment of participants. However, many studies, particularly in the field of social psychology, rely heavily on deception in order to test theories. If a participant was not deceived, there would be a high risk of them discovering the aims of the research, thus potentially resulting in them producing demand characteristics. As a result, the findings from the investigation could be rendered meaningless. This point is supported by research conducted investigating the levels of deception in psychological studies where it was found that 50-75% of published studies include deception (Adair, Dushenko, and Lindsey, 1985). Furthermore, without deception important findings would not be discovered. An example is Milgram’s 1968 study investigating obedience. Participants were told that the subjects they were administering electric shocks to were real when in actual fact, both the electric shocks and subjects were fake. Clearly the participants were deceived and had this study been conducted in the present day, it would have failed to get past the ethics board however, the findings were crucial to our understanding of obedience. It was found that practically anyone could commit a morally wrong action when told to do so, thus meaning that Milgram’s hypothesis that “all German’s are evil” as a result of what happened in World War 11 was wrong. This resulted in the stigmatic and stereotypical views of Germany being abandoned. Furthermore, when told about the deception, the majority of Milgram’s participants were impressed, thus indicating that as long as the subject is debriefed and told about the deception, it is not immoral or unethical.

Another ethical guideline that researchers must adhere to is to ensure that the participants are protected from harm, both physical and psychological. However, it is difficult to know how a participant will be harmed as psychological distress is highly subjective; what can be distressing for one person could mean nothing to someone else. Many people have seemingly irrational fears that the researcher could not possibly comprehend when formulating a research investigation. One way of overcoming this problem may be to include in the description of the study given to participants before they volunteer a warning of any issues discussed that may potentially upset  them. An example of this was a study I recently participated in via SONA in which the researchers warned that the issues of illness and disease would be discussed and not to participate if this may prove to be a probl. However, there are again some vital experiments that have been conducted in which participants were not protected from harm. An example is Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971). Zimbardo was investigating to conformity to social roles whereby participants took on the roles of prisoners and guards. The guards became highly authoritative and even abusive towards prisoners who, in turn, became passive and distressed. Eventually, the experiment had to be abandoned due to the harm that was being caused, with one of the prisoners even having a mental breakdown. In spite of this, the findings were important in our understanding of conformity in society and why we conform to social roles. This has had benefits in the prison service, police, and education.

Participants must also give fully informed consent before participating in an experiment due to the fact that failure to do so could result in the participant unknowlingly engaging in activities that he or she may not be comfortable participating in. However, this produces a serious problem when it comes to informing the participants of what will occur and what is being investigated. Firstly, as mentioned previously, deception occurs in many studies in psychology in order for the participants to refrain from guessing what the research is investigating. As a result, the participant can never give fully informed consent. An example of this is the role of placebos in medical trials. Participants are often told that the placebo is effective, when in fact it is not, in order for comparissons between the active drug and placebo to take place, for example the antidepressant citalopram (Montgomery & Rasmussen, 1993). If participants were fully informed, this comparisson could not take place. Furthermore, if a participant is fully informed they may produce demand characteristics to help the researcher find what they are investigating, which is detrimental to the discipline as a whole.

Clearly, it is important to note the fact that ethical guidelines are important in psychological testing due to the fact that it highlights the need for researchers to protect their participants in every way possible and prevents exploitation. It allows participants to be treated fairly and inhumanely. However, currently ethics have had a hugely negative impact on studies being conducted. Many important studies have had to be scrapped for ethical reasons and this is detrimental to science. Although I feel ethics is important and these ethical guidelines should be in place, ethics boards should carefully consider the costs and benefits of an experiment before dismissing it entirely. In this sense research will not be hindered, but facilitated in order to produce the best possible outcome for both researchers and participants.

Qualitative research or quantitative research…Which is better?

The question of whether research gathering quantitative data is better/worse/the same as research gathering qualitative data is a debate that has been highly debated in the discipline of psychology for many years. The differences in opinions can be demonstrated by Kerlinger, who believed that “there is no such thing as qualitative data. Everything is either 1 or 0”, as opposed to Campbell, taking the stance that “all research ultimately has a qualitative grounding”. There is evidence on both sides of the argument, but more importantly, this debate raises the fundamental question of whether engaging in this dispute is actually of any benefit, introducing the notion that these efforts should be focused in combining the two in order to create the optimum data for research.

Quantitative research can be briefly defined as the measurement of variables (e.g. intelligence, self-esteem, and reaction times) for the participants in an experiment to produce values that are, in turn, subjected to statistical analysis procedures in order to collect meaningful evidence supporting or refuting the research hypothesis (Gravetter & Foranzo, 2009). Qualitative research, on the other hand, relies on observations that are condensed and deduced to create an account. Therefore, quantitative research produces figures, often numbers, which can be analysed objectively; qualitative data is comprised of observational evidence created through the subjective interpretation. Here lies the crucial issue with qualitative research, the fact that it is highly subjective. This means that the researcher may interpret incorrect observations or conversations made by a participant in an interview. As a result, inaccurate data may be gathered, thus potentially resulting in either a type I error, whereby the researcher wrongly accepts the null hypothesis, or a type II error, whereby the researcher wrongly rejects the null hypothesis. Furthermore, the subjectivity of the researcher could also produce biased results, as the researcher may alter the meaning of the participants words in order to gain evidence that supports the idea that most suits their interests. Quantitative research goes some way in avoiding this problem, due to the fact that it is highly objective, thus reducing the potential problems of experimenter bias. However, Koch (1992) noted that, in spite of quantitative research being collected in the majority of psychological investigations, many researchers still only report evidence that they actually want to see and not what they find. In spite of this, the fact remains that although quantitative research is arguably never categorically objective, it is clearly far more objective than quantitative research, thus suggesting that it is the better of the two.

Qualitative data is also said to provide richer and more detailed evidence, as individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are not just assigned to a numerical value, as it is with quantitative research. Instead, data is full of information resulting in the researcher gaining a clearer insight into the participants’ lives. The obvious drawback of this is that it can be extremely time consuming, as when the data gained is transcribed, for example, every miniscule detail has to be included. As a result, the number of participants’ is often very small, which can cause problems with the generalizability of the findings. With quantitative research, this is avoided by only focusing on and detailing a small number of variables that are being investigated, thus saving time and meaning that more participants’ can be used.

Another critical difference between qualitative research and quantitative research is that qualitative research is inductive, it does not need a research hypothesis when the investigation begins. Instead, the researcher gathers data and fits the theory to the data collected. This is a continual process, where the theory posed can be changed numerous times with additional data gathered. On the other hand, quantitative data is deductive, it begins with a structured research hypothesis and the data collected will either support or refute the hypothesis. The inductive characteristic of qualitative research can be useful, as the continual process ensures that there is a significant amount of evidence to support the eventual theory. In spite of this there is the crucial argument that this does not follow the scientific method, which dictates that there should be a concrete research hypothesis at the beginning of the question. This is needed in order for research to be considered scientific and, as a result, qualitative research could be deemed to be non-scientific.

Clearly this is an important notion, however, as detailed in a previous blog, there have been alternatives posed to the scientific method. The flow diagram is the most notable method considered and this takes into account the role of qualitative research in modern psychological investigations. It states that in some cases, qualitative research and quantitative research can be conducted together. This creates a harmony between the two, and promotes the existence of the most optimum way of conducting research at this present time. An example of this is a study conducted by Synder (1995) investigating computer-assisted writing classrooms. The computer class was the treatment group, whilst the traditional pen-writing class was the control group, with the scores obtained by both groups being recorded, thus meaning that quantitative research being conducted. Moreover, to gather qualitative data, the findings were supplemented through observations of the classes and interviews with the children and the teacher. Synder found compelling evidence and even stated that she would have also included case studies if she were to conduct the investigation again. This notion is further supported by Casebeer & Verhoef (1997) who discussed the fact that chronic diseases need to be investigated using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data due to their nature. They stated that it was the reluctance in scientists to combine the two that has resulted in a lack of crucial findings in the area, adding that it is imperative that researchers do this in order to help mankind.

In conclusion, there are advantages and disadvantages to both qualitative and quantitative research, although notably a fair amount more of disadvantages for qualitative research. However, this is almost rendered meaningless when you consider the advantages of combining the two in order to create the optimum research that could potentially be conducted. As Casebeer & Verhoef state, this combination can prove to be extremely beneficial in the scientific world, with richer data being collected from qualitative data whilst remaining highly scientific through quantitative data. Some of the research being conducted today seems to be following the notion, although the majority do still follow quantitative research. Ultimately the combination of the two will, and should, grow to enable scientists to produce more compelling evidence.

Links:

Kerlinger :http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Qualitative_data_analysis.html?id=04ZHAAAAMAAJ

Campbell: http://www.mendeley.com/research/degrees-freedom-case-study-qualitative-quantitative-methods-evaluation-research/

Koch: http://tap.sagepub.com/content/2/3/261.short

Snyder: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500789509541401

Casebeer & Verhoef: http://web.pdx.edu/~stipakb/download/PA555/Qual-Quan3.htm

Analysing the method of a published empirical report

Much of the research conducted in the psychological discipline nowadays can be termed as empirical research, whereby researchers use scientific methods, such as laboratory tests or fMRI scans, to investigate a phenomenon. The use of these methods is critical, as it provides scientists with empirical evidence that can be falsified, as opposed to non-scientific methods such as case studies and observations. Furthermore, these methods ensure that future researchers can easily replicate or revise the experiment to generate the best theory possible that applies to the human mind and behaviour. Without empirical reports, findings are unlikely to be fully trusted by other psychologists and the scientific world as a whole. However, as you will witness, despite the apparent strengths of empirical reports, problems with certain aspects of the experimentation procedure can arise. In spite of this, it is important to note that at this point in time, empirical reports are the strongest indicator of experimental effects in data and serve a vital role in the study of psychology

The strengths of empirical reports can be seen clearly in research conducted on obedience by Milgram (1963). It is an investigation that the majority of psychology students will be familiar with, as it well respected and the results are widely documented. The source of Milgram’s interest in obedience came from his observations of the behaviour of the Nazi Party in World War 11, and he began to question why members followed out the horrific tasks set by figures of authority.

To investigate his observation, Milgram recruited forty male participants who were told that the experimenters were exploring the effects of punishment on learning. The participants were paid a sum of $4.50 for their participation and were informed that they would still receive this even if they decided to withdraw from the experiment. Each participant was placed in a room with an investigator and were told that they would be the teacher for a learner who was sat in a different room; unknown to the participants, the learner was an actor. Each time the learner failed to get a question correct, the participant was asked to administer an electric shock, increasing the voltage level for each wrong answer. These were obviously fake electric shocks, but this again was unknown to the participant. The learner sat in silence for each electric shock administered until the voltage reached 300 volts, at which point the learner banged the wall and failed to answer the next question. When the voltage reached 315 volts, the learner repeated these actions, but from this moment forward, did not say or do anything. If the participant asked the experimenter if they could stop administering the electric shocks, the experimenter would have specified answers to state, such as “it is vital that you continue”. Milgram found that 65% of the participants continued to give electric shocks until the maximum voltage, which was considerably beyond the voltages marked as “danger: severe shock”. Only 12.5% of the participants ceased to give electric shocks past the 300 volts mark. The findings support the notion that people will obey authority figures, even if this means causing severe harm to others.

There are quite clearly ethical issues with this research conducted, as participants may have been left emotionally scarred with the knowledge that they could behave in such as manner towards another person. Additionally, although many experiments do require some form of deception in order to find supportive evidence, the extent of the deception used in this study did cause many raised eyebrows within the scientific community. Furthermore, despite being told at the beginning of the experiment that they would be allowed to withdraw at any time without penalty, the way the experimenter responded to participants’ pleas meant that it was difficult to do so.

Although these ethical issues are extremely important in terms of the moral implications of the experiment, the use of the empirical method is also important to analyse in order to be fully aware of the strengths and limitations in applying the findings to real life situations. One of the main problems with this research, and indeed many empirical reports published, is that the experiment was conducted in a laboratory setting, thus meaning it was extremely artificial. After all, in real life when would you ever be asked to sit in a room and give electric shocks to person who has not done anything to hurt you? This means that the experiment does lack external validity, as it is difficult to apply the findings to real life situations. The laboratory setting is also one which many people do not experience, thus again making the findings difficult to generalise. There are ways of overcoming this predicament such as conducting the experiment in different locations or setting up the laboratory to look like a normal everyday room, a classroom for example. This is often done in developmental psychology, whereby experimenters try to make a laboratory look more like a nursery to increase external validity. Moreover, the sample used were US men, thus raising the question of whether the findings from this research can be applied to the general population, perhaps in females the findings may be stronger or indeed weaker.

Another potential problem with the way that the experiment was conducted is that demand characteristics could have played a significant part of the experimental outcome. The majority of people with any ounce of common sense would probably assume that the electric shocks were fake, after all it would be illegal for them not to be. As a consequence, participants may have not taken the experiment seriously and just carried on increasing the voltage for the fun of it or to help the experimenter achieve the results that were expected.  Orne and Holland (1968) further criticised the methods used stating that there may have been other reasons for participants behaviour such as assuming that the learner was no longer in the room after 315 volts. This would cause the findings to be dubious and lack internal validity.

In spite of these criticisms, there are also many strengths of the experimental method used by Milgram in order to publish an empirical report. Although the artificial setting of a laboratory can lead to problems with generalizability to real life situations, laboratory experiments are renowned for creating a substantial amount of control in an experiment, thus meaning that potential threats to internal validity are more likely to be avoided. Furthermore, perhaps the most important aspect of the amount of control and precision used in the investigation, means that it has been repeated many times across the world. Other researchers, and indeed Milgram himself, expanded the experiment to investigate other features affecting obedience. Features such as the proximity of the learner to the participant, the gender of the participant, an absent experimenter, and a shift in location, impacted on the levels of obedience to the experimenter shown by the participants. Without such as well controlled experimental method, these replications would have been difficult to achieve.

Milgram’s investigation into obedience clearly has extreme ethical issues, however for this discussion we will put these issues aside and focus on the method (although feel free to add your views on the ethical problems displayed by this and other research when commenting). As with many empirical reports, the methods used can often display certain problems that could potentially have a detrimental effect on the findings of the investigation. It seems that in most cases of experiments in laboratory settings, you have to sacrifice some external validity in order for the research to be internally valid. The fundamental question raised is what is the alternative? Would it really be realistic to use case studies or observations to go and explore such an intensive idea of obedience? The fact of the matter is that it would be almost impossible to carry out this research using a non-scientific approach. It would lack any form of empiricism, would have no internal validity whatsoever, and quite probably would not produce any significant findings. The methods used in empirical reports such as Milgram’s mean that scientists can replicate and refine important research; it means that compelling evidence is provided for others to critique, and most importantly it attempts the scientific studies of crucial difficulties in order to make the world a better place to live.

Orne, M.T., & Holland, C.H. (1968). The ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6. 282-293.  : http://www.psych.upenn.edu/history/orne/orneholland1968ijp282293.html

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Abnormal Social Psychology, 67. 371-378

What is the scientific method and is there a better alternative?

psud82

The scientific method has been in use for hundreds of years, with the philosopher Francis Bacon pioneering the approach. With eventual changes being formulated and new initiatives added, the scientific method has gained in strength. Indeed, open any scientific textbook and you will see pages dedicated to the scientific method. Furthermore, any Bangor University psychology second year should remember the countless questions given on the matter in the weekly stats test. However, in recent years some scientists have begun to argue that the scientific method is grossly oversimplified and have presented compelling alternatives to the way that we view and conduct science.

There are five steps in the scientific method. Firstly, the researcher must observe behaviour or phenomena and use what they have observed to generalise to others (inductive reasoning). Other variables must then be identified that are associated with the observation and the most plausible variables can then be chosen to create a hypothesis which, in turn, is used to produce a testable prediction (deductive reasoning). After this prediction has been made, research is conducted in order to provide an unbiased test of the research hypothesis. The final step of the scientific method is to gather the data collected during testing and see whether it supports or refutes the research hypothesis. If the evidence refutes the hypothesis, the researcher may decide to refine prediction posed.

An example of the use of the scientific method in research can be seen in an investigation conducted by Halpern (1995) who observed that people tend to become more aggressive during the summer months. Halpern used inductive reasoning to generalise this observation to the population as a whole and identified that heat may be the variable that influences this change in behaviour. Through deductive reasoning, Halpern hypothesised that as temperature increases, so too does aggressive behaviour, and after analysing various laboratory studies found evidence supporting this notion.

This study clearly demonstrates that the scientific method can produce meaningful and important findings that can have a significant impact on the world in which we live. Arguably the best reason for using this method is the fact that it dictates that empirical methods such as observations and experiments should be used to test theories. These methods help to ensure that there are high levels of control during investigations and that the research is generally objective and unbiased. However, the objectivity of empiricism in the scientific method has been exposed to some criticism stating that some researchers only report the findings that they want to see; not what they actually observe (Koch, 1992). In spite of this criticism, the fact remains that there are strict guidelines that all researchers should adhere to when conducting research in order to ensure that research is objective. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that any reputable journal would publish a report that appears to be subjective or biased.

Another important aspect of the scientific method is that it guarantees a design that other researchers can easily replicate. This is vital, as science is not just about new theories; it is also about gaining clearer understandings of current ones too. In this sense, the scientific method can be seen as a cycle, allowing theories to flourish from one researcher to another. Moreover, as mentioned previously, if a researcher’s hypothesis is not supported by the data collected, the scientific method provides the option of moving backwards and readdressing the hypothesis, thus meaning that the method is interactive and supports the researcher’s endeavours.

However, critics of the scientific method have begun to question its use, particularly in educational institutions such as universities and schools. J. Scotchmoor and her team have pioneered a new paradigm complete with a website (www.understandingscience.org) after becoming conscious that the scientific method is merely an “oversimplified representation of how scientists write up results”. They added that many students are under the illusion that conducting research requires carefully “following a series of steps with no room for creativity and inspiration”. Scotchmoor’s new paradigm is The Science Flow Chart demonstrates how research can be instigated by a wide range of problems or issues that are in need of an explanation. Testing ideas are then used to collect and interpret data, which may be followed by interactions with other researchers, research of new questions, additional testing, or implementing scientific knowledge. The flow chart aims to stress that science is a dynamic process encompassing other scientists involved in other research. See below for a diagram of the flow chart.

This way of looking at research is well-respected, interesting, and is proving to be a reliable alternative to the scientific method for many people. Rather than focusing only on testing and evidence, the flow chart incorporates the discovery side of science, thus generating more attraction and enthusiasm as opposed to its counterpart. More interest in science and scientific research can only be a good thing for the discipline however, some would argue that for some people, especially students, the simplistic steps that the scientific method portrays is far easier to learn than the flow chart method. In spite of this argument, this new method should make it far more straightforward for students to engage with scientific research when looking at past research studies, but more so when they plan their own. Furthermore, the flow chart method too suggests that objective and empirical research should be conducted and also follows a design that can be easily replicated by other researchers.

The scientific method clearly has a role to play in the sciences and still to this day remains the most widely taught paradigm in research methods courses. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is a series of steps that bores rather than excites and avoids the importance of the discovery aspect of science. The flow chart method relays how scientists really conduct investigations, bringing in the notion of creativity and interactions with the scientific community. This new approach is vital due to the implications that it can have in the world of science. Perhaps now rather than loathe research methods, the flow chart method will inspire creativity and enthusiasm in students, thus resulting in more people following a career path in a scientific discipline.

Resources:

www.understandingscience.org

http://www.aibs.org/eye-on-education/eye_on_education_2009_01.html

References:

Halpern, D. (1995). Mental health and the built environment. London, England: Taylor and Francis.

Koch, S. (1992). Psychology’s Bridgman vs Bridgman’s Bridgman: An Essay in Reconstruction. Theory Psychology, 2(3), 261-290. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00022287

Do you need Statistics to Understand your Data?

psud82

As discussed in my previous blog, statistics are used day to day in a variety of different ways. Whether it is in advertising, governmental statistics, medical information, or scientific research, statistics enable the general public to infer crucial information in a relatively simple format. As psychology students, the primary reason of our use of statistics is in psychological research studies; this use is vital in order for students, researchers, and the general public to fully comprehend the data obtained.

In scientific investigations, it is ordinarily the case that large amounts of numbers are obtained from the tests conducted. Statistical tests, such as t-tests and ANOVAs, are calculated on this data in order for it to be condensed into smaller, simpler, and more meaningful figures. If these statistical tests were not carried out, it would be difficult for the researcher to demonstrate effectively that the results gathered either support or refute the hypothesis tested. Furthermore, statistics are globally recognised as a valid way of presenting scientific findings. As a result, virtually any researcher would be able to read the findings and fully understand what the investigation has discovered.

Additionally, it is important to note that it is not just other researchers who read scientific research reports; general members of the public often do also, particularly if they or a family member have an illness and they want to read recent research published on the ailment. As mentioned previously, statistical calculations are conducted on data in order to condense them into a few simple figures. These figures can then be used to create statistical graphs, such as line graphs or histograms, so that the data can be presented in a clear, and relatively simple to understand, visual presentation. As a result, practically anyone can understand the results; not just scientists. However, some may argue that in some cases, statistics are not really required to create a graph. For example, say someone was investigating how many people preferred a certain colour; a bar chart could be used with the colour on the x axis, and the frequency on the y axis. In this somewhat simplistic example, the only data that is needed is the number of people preferring each colour; no statistics. Despite this fact, the majority of charts do use statistical calculations to plot points on graphs, show averages on charts, etc. thus meaning that it is imperative to use statistics to understand the data.

The value of statistics in terms of being able to understand any data obtained can be seen in all research studies however, one clear example is the investigation of the links between the Type A behaviour pattern and coronary heart disease. 3200 men were categorised as either Type A, Type X, or Type B, and were followed up for a period of eight and a half years. By the end of the study, 257 participants had developed coronary heart disease, 70% of which were from the Type A group (Rosenman et al., 1976). Clearly, without the use of statistics, the significant percentage of 70% would not have been calculated, thus meaning that the findings would not have had such a substantial weight to them. In this case, the use of statistics in order to understand data is rendered extremely important.

To conclude, statistics is vital in order to fully comprehend data obtained in scientific investigations. However, it is important to note that there are other factors needed in order to understand this data. Knowledge of experimental procedures are needed for the reader to understand any potential confounding variables, and a clear awareness of the background research conducted is also beneficial in order to realise any implications of the study. It is a combination of all these skills that will ensure that any researcher has the ability to produce the best set of results that demonstrates the best understanding of data obtained possible.

Rosenman, R.H., Brand, R.J., Sholtz, M.S. & Friedman, M. (1976). Multivariate prediction of coronary heart disease during 8.5 year collaborative group study. The American Journal of Cardiology. 37(6), 903 – 910, doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(76)90117-X