# data[].attributes.body
Should psychological research always follow the ethical guidelines? Is it OK to break them to get more valid/useful findings?

# data[].attributes.body
Nature suggests behaviours is due to our biology and inherited characteristics (genetics)

Nurture suggests behaviours is learned and affected by our environment and upbringing

# data[].attributes.body
Individual explanations suggest our behaviour is the result of unique characteristics such as personality and our past experiences

Situational suggests our behaviour is affected by our current environment and circumstances

# data[].attributes.body
Individual explanations suggest our behaviour is the result of unique characteristics such as personality and our past experiences.

Situational suggests our behaviour is affected by our current environment and circumstances

# data[].attributes.body
The debate centres on whether research always needs to have useful practical applications

# data[].attributes.body
Questions whether we should investigate topics that might be sensitive - i.e. lead to negative uses or potential harm and negative stigma/prejudice against the participants or the groups of people they represent

# data[].attributes.body
Free will suggests we are able to choose and control how we behave.

Determinism suggests our behaviour is outside of our control and influenced by factors such as our genetics, upbringing and environment or by other peolple

# data[].attributes.body
65% of participants who administered electric shocks to the learner all the way up to the maximum 450V can be seen as having their behaviour determined by the situation in which they were

35% of participants who walked away from the experiment before reaching the maximum 450V can be seen as exercising free will and choosing how they act

# data[].attributes.body
Participants had no idea they were participating in an experiment, and therefore it was down to them as to whether they offered help to the cane or drunk individual. This shows it to be free will

# data[].attributes.body
Relates to determinism as shows that there are invariant stages all humans go through that we cannot do anything about. It is determined that we go through one stage at a time, there are no other options. However, some may argue that as we may not all go through all the stages, and may stop at any stage, there is an element of free will. It may not be determined which stage we still stop at.

# data[].attributes.body
•On one hand, Bandura’s study supports determinism as the children were influenced by both the models, and the child’s parents and upbringing. This will make the child more/ less aggressive.

•However, on the other hand, Bandura’s study supports free will as the children did have a choice. There were a number of different toys in the room with the children, which any of them could’ve used, furthermore, not all students showed aggressive behaviour after watching the aggressive model.

# data[].attributes.body
Goulds review of Yerkes’ research is not socially sensitive as it is disproving Yerkes’ socially sensitive research

Loftus and Palmer can be seen as not socially sensitive as the research isn’t commenting on any minority groups and rather and universal cognitive process

# data[].attributes.body
His model can be seen as holistic in the sense that it is taking account of the range of different factors rather than just explaining helping behaviour as the result of one factor alone.

However, it can be argued that his model is reductionist as it misses out other reasons why people might help such as kindness and genuine desire to help people who are in need

Aayan Angelia Sophie

# data[].attributes.body
To maintain construct validity Piliavin had to abandon certain ethical guidelines such as deception and consent because that would not give proper results , the participants may be subject to demand characteristics also protection from harm was possibly abandoned because the participants who did not act upon the situation could walk away with a lower sense of self worth

# data[].attributes.body
Reductionist - Bandura’s study can be seen as reductionist as it suggests that children’s behaviour can be explained in terms of a single comment for example, children may have witnessed violence and aggression on TV or from parents

Holism - the study examines external and internal factors to explain behaviour by looking at model behaviour and innate aggression tested beforehand which can be influenced by background and culture

# data[].attributes.body
Usefulness - can be applied to how leading questions can affect testimonies in court and how they can affect people’s memory to twist a story.

# data[].attributes.body
Bandura - the results from Bandura were very useful for people. This was because it showed people that children are more likely to become violent if their role models are violent. This promotes people to become kinder and less violent in society as they don’t want their children to become violent in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Milgrams findings shows how far people will go under pressure of authority. This can be used in the army as they can see how to be more authoritative to people.

# data[].attributes.body
Milgram

Individual

Through qualitative data like nervous laughing, sweating, and shaking whilst administering the electric shocks implied they were very uncomfortable. Although 65% of participants did shock up to 450v, the fact that 35% of participants declined shocking up to the 450v shows that some people’s personalities can influence their decisions more than the environmental pressures around them.