What do psychologists do?

KEY INTEGRATIVE THEME: Ethical principles guide psychology research and practice

It may seem strange, but we will begin our understanding of what psychologists do by diving into animal research. While psychology is generally focused on humans, psychologists also study how animals think, behave, and live. For the most part, psychology researchers study animals when it would be unethical or difficult to do the same thing with humans, and with the ultimate goal of better understanding human functioning. Animal behavior is also studied to support the well-being of the animals themselves. Animals also contribute to medical research – for example, when developing new medicines, they are often first tested in animals before humans. 

This type of animal-subject research has similarities but also differences from human-subject research. They are similar in how the research is conducted, and the fact that they both require a review and approval from a group that ensures the study is meeting ethical standards before it can commence. Animals have not always been given these protections, and unfortunately, there were many unethical studies done with animals in the past. Here you will read about one well-known, highly controversial study that took place in the 1960s before there were rules about how to treat animals humanely in experiments. After that, you will read about the Key Theme for this chapter and more about psychology history. Next, you will read a modern research example and then consider what an ethical student looks like.

Research Story: Elephants on Acid

Background and Research Question

In the early 1960’s, when psychedelic drugs were still being discovered and developed, a group of psychologists decided to give an elephant lysergic acid diethylamide, more commonly known as LSD. The background of this study is important to take into context; scientists were interested in the behavior of adult male elephants during their “musth” period. This occurs about once a year and for some elephants, only lasts a few days. But for others, it lasts a few months. The adult males become extremely violent and destructive during musth and even attack their own young. To better understand this “condition” that psychiatrists equated with being “mad” or “insane”, it needed to be induced, meaning putting an elephant into musth rather than wait for it to naturally occur. They knew that during musth, the elephant produces a fluid in a specific region of their brain, so they wondered if they could recreate it with a drug. The personality-disrupting effects of LSD in humans and other animals had recently been discovered, and these psychiatrists wanted to find out if an elephant-sized dose of LSD (297 mg) would put an elephant into musth.

The Study (What Did They Do?)

This study took two days and involved a single elephant named Tusko. On the first day, the researchers measured
baseline behavior by injecting Tusko with a placebo liquid. He had a startle response during the injection with a few minutes of restlessness before going back to his normal, resting state. That was considered Tusko’s baseline. The second day was the experimental day. The initial reaction of restlessness was the same, but things then got worse. Tusko lost coordination, fell over, and started to shake. Twenty minutes into this part of the experiment, the researchers injected another medication to try and help the still-seizing elephant, but it did not do much good. Unfortunately, Tusko died an hour and twenty minutes after being injected with LSD.

Results (What did they find? What did they learn?)

When they performed an autopsy on Tusko, the researchers learned how LSD affected the brain structure of this elephant. They concluded elephants are very sensitive to LSD, and both musth and LSD affect the same area in the elephant’s brain. They also learned that LSD does not produce the same liquid as a natural, meaning not-chemically induced, musth does.

The researchers then published and presented their results. This study remains a foundational one in psychology history, although not because of their findings. Tusko’s death was preventable, and the way this study was conducted contributed to the field’s discussion on the ethical treatment of animals in research. While this study did allow researchers to better understand animal psychology and neurology, the study with Tusko is considered one of the more unethical animal studies in the field of psychology. Further, we now know (through advances in science) musth occurs with an increase in particular hormones in the elephant’s brain, and that it indicates that they are healthy rather than “mad” or mentally ill.^[1]

 If you would like to read the original “Elephants on Acid” study,  you can do so through this link.

Commentary and Concepts

Experiments such as the one described above (Tusko the elephant) were pivotal in making strides toward stricter ethical guidelines for research. Why do we need formal guidelines? Why can’t people figure out what is right and wrong on their own? What do you think?

Have you ever pushed against a rule? Maybe you broke some rules growing up that didn’t make sense to you (like bedtime or wearing a coat when you did not feel cold), checked your cell phone in class, or rode your bike where the sign said “no bikes.” Let’s face it – people generally do no’t like being told what to do. While we like to know what is expected of us, we do not always like to follow “rules” just for the sake of it. Even if we know a rule will keep someone else (or us) safe, we might not believe it is important to follow. You can probably come up with several examples of everyday rule-breaking.

Often, our behavior is determined by our personal ethics, or moral code. This means that we use our values (what is good) and principles (what is right) to guide our behavior (what to do). The development of those values and principles is somewhat personal and influenced by our families and society. Sometimes our personal ethics align with the “law” and sometimes they do not. When we talk about ethics In a professional context, “rules” are often based on the values and principles of the discipline and guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. For example, medical doctors, lawyers, and even teachers have to take a test before they are allowed to practice their discipline. Almost all professions have to abide by a code of ethics – and if they fail to follow their code, they risk losing their licenses and/or jobs. Psychologists, too, follow ethical guidelines in their work. The next section describes different kinds of work in psychology and how they are guided by ethics.

KEY THEME: Ethical principles guide psychology research and practice

Ethical Principles Guide Psychology Research

Ethics in research is an evolving field, and some practices that were accepted or tolerated in the past would be considered unethical today – such as giving elephants large doses of LSD. Although psychological research intends to advance science for public good, unfortunately, both people and animals have been greatly harmed as research subjects in the past. Current-day researchers are expected to adhere to strict ethical guidelines when conducting experiments that involve human or animal participants.

A human example of unethical research occurred in 1932 when poor, rural, Black, male sharecroppers from Tuskegee, Alabama, were recruited to participate in a 40-year study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, to study syphilis in Black men (Figure 2). In exchange for free medical care, meals, and burial insurance, 600 men agreed to participate in the study. A little more than half of the men tested positive for syphilis but were never informed that they had the disease. While there was no treatment for syphilis when the study began, by 1947 penicillin was recognized as an effective treatment for the disease. Despite this, no penicillin was administered to the participants in this study, and the participants were not allowed to seek treatment at any other facilities if they wanted to continue in the study (and continue to receive free “medical care,” meals, and burial insurance they were promised).

Over 40 years, many of the participants unknowingly spread syphilis to others and eventually died with the disease. In 1972 the experiment was discovered by the national press (Tuskegee University, n.d.) and soon discontinued… The resulting outrage led to the National Research Act of 1974 and the extensive, strict ethical guidelines for research on humans that exists today. Since psychology research involves humans or animals as “subjects,” it is governed by those guidelines. ^[2]

More on Animal Research

Researchers who use animals as experimental subjects must design their projects so the animals’ pain and distress are minimized. Legal and regulatory approaches to animal testing vary among nations. Some take the form of strong government regulation and monitoring, while others take a more self-regulated approach and rely on the ethics of the researchers.^[3]

For example the United Kingdom has one of the strongest regulations, while Japan employs the self-regulation approach. The U.S. approach is somewhere in the middle, the result of a gradual blending of strict and loose guidelines. In the U.S., any facility using animals and receiving federal funding must have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to ensure the ethical guidelines are followed. This committee reviews research proposals and performs inspections of laboratories and protocols.^[4]

Animal research benefits humans. For example, before medicine accepted the germ theory of disease, many people died during routine surgeries. Once they understood how infections were spread, precautions were taken and mortality rates from surgery decreased dramatically. This was in large part due to research using animals conducted by Louis Pasteur.^[5],[6] Further, our understanding about emotion and mental disorders is based primarily on research with animals, and our knowledge would be quite limited without them.^[7]

For example, the findings from Dr. Jane Flinn’s animal lab at George Mason University has contributed to our understanding of Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The research they conduct with mice could not ethically be conducted with humans – they would have to be willing to undergo treatment that induces brain injury!

It is understandable to be concerned about using animals in this way, and learning about it brings up many questions. Why are we willing to cause disease in animals but not in humans? Why is human life more valued? These are important questions. One way to think about it is mutualism. Laboratory animals are bred and raised in the lab, similar to other domesticated animals who cannot survive without connection to humans. When ethical guidelines are followed, they are well cared for and their existence benefits both their own species and humans in various ways.

Human Research

When human participants are involved, researchers must present their research plans to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) before they can begin. The IRB is a committee of other scientists and community members that review research proposals to ensure that they are ethically sound and that they protect the participants from harm. Each study requires that participants give informed consent and that they are debriefed after participation. Debriefing participants becomes especially important if there is any deception within the study.

Why would researchers need to deceive participants in research? One reason for this is the placebo effect. This happens when expectations influence how you feel. Tusko was given a placebo, or non-active substance, so that his reaction to getting a needle injection could be observed – so the researchers could sort out his reaction to the needle from his reaction to the actual drug. Sometimes a whole group of people are given a placebo so they can be compared to a “treatment” group that gets the medicine(or other treatment) being studied – but they don’t know whether they are getting the medicine or the placebo. This is a necessary step so that we can see whether the treatment is responsible for changing the behavior or whether it would have changed anyway. For example, when studying treatment for an anxiety disorder, without a placebo or comparison group, it is difficult to determine whether the anxiety symptoms would improve over time (as often happens) without treatment, or whether the treatment is causing improvement. This is all part of designing a study to be able to answer the research questions being asked.^[8]

Why would researchers need to deceive participants in research? One relatively common way deception is used in studies is when participants receive a placebo,or a non-active substance. In some studies testing the effectiveness of an interventionor a medication, some people are given a placebo so they can be compared to the
treatment group. But researchers use deception to make sure participants do not know if they are getting the treatment or the placebo. Because participants are not told which group they are in, all of the participants think they are getting the real treatment. You may have heard placebo effect, or when people have a reaction to the non-treatment because they believe they are actually getting the treatment. This is a necessary step to whether the treatment is responsible for changing the behavior or whether it would have changed anyway. For example, when studying treatment for an anxiety disorder, without a placebo or comparison group, it is difficult to determine whether the anxiety symptoms would improve over time (as often happens) without treatment, or whether it is the treatment causing improvement.

Ethical principles guide psychology practice.

“Practice” in psychology actually occurs in many settings. When we use the word practice, most people think of mental health, and clinical or counseling psychologists. These health-service psychologists use a variety of methods with varying levels of known effectiveness. Many mental health treatments are not fully tested and cannot be called “empirically validated or proven” but are considered empirically based or evidence-informed. Evidence-based means the treatment has been tested against a control group and demonstrated it decreased the targeted symptoms. Evidence-informed means the treatment has been developed using the results of research about those or similar symptoms and disorders. Though, these treatments and interventions may not be fully tested because it is very difficult to do so ethically (i.e., denying someone a treatment you know works in the name of research can be unethical)

Psychologists also work in many other industries and subfields. Forensic psychologists work in the criminal justice system, industrial-organizational psychologists work in corporations and other workplace settings, human-factors and engineering psychologists work in industries such as aviation or the U.S. government, and climate psychologists^[10] work to understand how human behavior affects the natural world.^[11] Regardless of their industry, each of these psychologists are bound to the same ethical code.^[12] Within the language of this code are sections that apply to various practices, such as informed consent for therapy and testing. The ethics code specifies psychologists should only practice within the bounds of their competence based on their education, training, or experience.

 Many psychologists are also teachers. And as teachers, they must follow a related ethical code. For example, professors should take steps to ensure their syllabi and course materials contain accurate and up-to-date information, and should not require students to disclose personal information in a class. Psychological professors who also have training in providing therapy also must maintain clear boundaries. The professor-student relationship is different from a therapist-client relationship, and professors cannot ethically provide therapy to students (though they can and should assist students in finding the help they need).

A Modern Example

Have you ever heard someone say, “I’m a visual learner,” or “I learn best when I can be hands-on?” In education, there’s a commonly held belief that teachers should match instruction to students’ preferred way of learning – seeing, listening, or physically engaging in learning activities. This belief persists in education textbooks and on licensing exams. This notion has been widely accepted for decades. But is there solid scientific evidence to support the idea of learning styles? Here, we will dive into this common belief and explore evidence challenging the functionality of learning styles.

The Conundrum

The way we have defined these ‘learning styles’ suggests individuals have specific ideal ways of absorbing and retaining information. Commonly recognized learning styles include visual, auditory, reading-writing, and kinesthetic. The wide-accepted myth of having one of these styles means a learner will thrive the most when they are learning in that modality. This idea seems appealing because they align with our understanding people are unique, and we all have different strengths and preferences. Further, people like to be able to have labels to use to describe themselves (e.g., think of buzzfeed quizzes or popular personality tests). Teachers often embrace this myth, believing if they cater to each student’s learning style, students will display better comprehension and retention of information. But does it really work that way?^[14]

Psychologists such as Dan Willingham at the University of Virginia, have studied the validity of learning styles, and have found no convincing evidence that they exist the way we think they do. In one study, participants were categorized as visual or auditory learners. Half of them received visual presentations, while the other half received auditory presentations on the same information. Everyone was then tested on the material. When the researchers compared the group matched with their preferred modality (i.e., visual learners saw a visual presentation) to the groups that were mismatched (i.e., auditory learners saw visual presentations), they found there was no significant difference in learning outcomes between the matched and mismatched groups. In another study examining “visualizers” versus “verbalizers” (instead of visual versus auditory learners), those researchers found similar results. In essence, there was no clear advantage in learning.^[15]

The Paradox

One reason this learning styles myth persists is people often perceive a connection between their preferred style and their ability to learn. For example, if a visual learner sees a helpful diagram and experiences an “aha” moment, they might attribute it to their visual learning style. However, the diagram is likely effective for many people, not just visual learners. This can be considered confirmation bias, or interpreting information in a way that supports a pre-existing belief. Instead of catering to specific learning styles, research suggests that a more effective approach involves using multimodal teaching and learning methods (also called “dual coding.” These methods combine different ways of learning, such as combining a presentation with a visual or an activity. This style of teaching better engages students’ problem-solving and critical thinking.

Why does it matter?

Yes, we are going to keep talking about the myth of learning styles. Some call it “the myth that won’t die.” Why? Despite the scientific evidence of learning styles not being effective, they are still included in some teacher preparation programs, early college success courses, and taught in schools. Many students find identifying with a learning style useful – so why does it matter if people still believe in them? Why take away something that seems to help?

Using evidence-based teaching and learning strategies in schools can pave the way for more effective and inclusive education systems from early childhood through advanced graduate study. We don’t want our teachers to unquestioningly accept and implement what publishing companies promote, just as we don’t want doctors to blindly accept pharmaceutical representatives’ recommendations for treatment. We also want students to learn the methods most helpful to their overall learning!

Neglecting evidence can have serious consequences. Consider a similar disconnect between research and practice, such as reading instruction in U.S. schools. Because of a lack of exposure to the science of reading, teachers often rely on conventional methods and hearsay when teaching reading in the classroom. Consequently, “whole language”-style instruction, under the guise of “balanced literacy,” remains prevalent, despite substantial research supporting a more effective approach. As a result, one out of every three American 4th graders struggles to read at a basic level.

You might wonder how the belief in learning styles could possibly harm students. After all, don’t prospective teachers need to acknowledge and accommodate individual differences, recognizing the importance of tailored instruction?

On the surface, it may seem harmless. However, when teachers devote time and effort to accommodating learning styles lacking empirical backing, they divert their attention and resources from the instructional strategies we know will work. Rather than focusing on planning instruction based on visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners, teachers can learn to differentiate instruction based on individual students’ mastery of skills and knowledge—factors that genuinely influence student learning.^[17]

More direct harm can be caused when students try and conform to their assigned learning style label. They might avoid effective learning strategies or subjects they think don’t align with their “learning style” or try to process information in their preferred style, even when not suitable for that specific material. Teachers who attempt to cater to multiple learning styles in a lesson can negatively impact student learning by causing cognitive overload. No teacher can perfectly teach every student, but what they can do is cast aside methods with no evidence in favor of the many strategies with proven effectiveness.

The Ethical Student

Students too have an ethical code. Usually, personal ethics are enough to guide you in what is right and good, but sometimes a situation and what you should do is ambiguous. This is where a student honor code comes in. Most schools and universities have an honor code to lay out what is considered ethical behavior for that school. Honor codes include the rules around academic misconduct such as cheating. Cheating is considered unethical in most situations and contexts, including a classroom. However, occasionally students are unclear on what kinds of behavior are considered cheating. You likely are aware that plagiarism is cheating. But what if you take a sentence someone else wrote, change a few words, and then put it in your paper? Most programs would still consider that plagiarism, especially if there is no citation to the original source. You must make it clear whether your work is your own idea or based on someone else’s ideas.

Even more challenging to sort out are the current advances in AI, or artificial intelligence. This new form of technology has many ethical implications across different disciplines. Is it ethical to create art with AI and pass it off as your own? What about a lawyer using it to write their case? Or a student using AI to write a class discussion post? The technology behind the AI software has environmental impact as well due to extreme energy demands – is it ethical to use it when it is contributing so heavily to energy use and climate change?^[19]

As usual, there is no easy answer. There are many aspects to consider when evaluating a given behavior through an ethical lens. With every new form of technology, there is always the question of how to use that tool ethically. AI is no exception. Further, this technology is being developed at a faster pace than we can create policies around ethical use.^[20]

In this early stage of the AI boom, it is safe to say that AI has great potential for serving as a tutor or a personal assistant – and also great potential for ethical conversations. If you would like to read more about AI ethical recommendations, please see this site: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence | UNESCO^[21]