TMA O1 Section 1

DSE212
Andrew Douglas- Dunbar

Sarah Wood

Identity can be defined as a person’s understanding of their own self and

personality.

Prominent psychoanalyst Erik Erikson developed the ‘Psychosocial Theory of

Identity’ (Erik Erikson etal, 1968) which sees the achievement of a core identity
as a lengthy developmental process; humans pass through eight specific
developmental stages throughout their lives, and build upon their identity
throughout.

One difficulty with Erikson’s theory is that it generalises stages of development

and does not allow room for individual differences. For instance, Erikson
indicated the importance of the ‘adolescent’ stage due to what he deemed the
significant key decisions made. Erikson’s assertion that it is essential for
people to successfully pass through the adolescent stage in order to develop
their identity not only dismisses the fact that people develop at different
speeds, but also seems implausible because it suggests that by then a person
should have an entirely secure sense of who they are by the time they have passed
out of adolescence which for many people is simply not the case.

It is difficult to measure or quantify a person’s identity because as Erikson

himself acknowledged, it is formed by a variety of experiences and processes over
a person’s lifetime, therefore it is impossible to successfully experiment with a
large enough sample. As a result, it could be argued that Erikson’s theory is
based entirely upon his own views and opinions rather than reasoned research.
Furthermore, in the creation of his theory, Erikson was inspired by War veterans
and as such, considerably influenced by one age- group’s experiences of identity.

It could be argued that Erikson’s theory is difficult to apply to identity in

contemporary culture. There have been significant cultural changes since Erikson
developed his theory, and it seems likely that aspects of Erikson’s own cultural
experiences influenced him. For instance, Erikson proposes that by the end of
adolescence a person should have identified their own role and have a firm
identity, essentially, that they should become an adult. In the early to mid
twentieth century, it was considered normal for young people to settle into adult
roles such as that of a parent, quickly, and further experiences which could
develop identity such as University, were offered only to the select few.

Another problem with Erikson’s theory is that it does not appear to acknowledge
the effect that particular experiences could have on a person’s identity, rather,
the theory presents stages which are highly structured according to age rather
than experience or other factors.

Erikson’s theory also incorporated his view that in order for a person to achieve
a contented life they would have to achieve their own secure identity, but also be
able to join groups with others whom they identity as having similar identity
traits and values.

Some psychologists are interested in the extent to which membership of a group is

necessary for secure identity, and how identifying with a perceived ‘in group’ can
increase the likelihood of discriminatory behaviours towards perceived ‘out
groups’.
Inspired by the extent to which in group identity inspired the gang mentality of
the Nazis, Henri Tajfel conducted an experiment to measure the lowest necessary
condition which could result in an ‘in group’ behaving in a discriminatory way
towards the ‘out group’; whether “simply being a member of a group would create
discriminatory behaviour between groups” (Mapping Psychology, Miell, Phoenix and
Thomas, 2007, p.62-68) even if these “groups” were meaningless and designed by the
experimenter. Tajfel separated a group of teenaged boys into two such groups and
during a task which involved the assignation of points for tasks, found that the
boys separated into the ‘in-group’ and the ‘out- group’ and would favour their own
“group” at all costs (Henri Tajfel etal, 1971).

The key tenets of Tajfel’s ‘Social Identity Theory’ are that people naturally
ingratiate themselves within a particular group because this helps them both form
and securely maintain their own personal identity. According to Tajfel, this is
vital for a person because the group membership becomes central to their concept
of themselves, therefore they have a need to protect it, and also, to view it as
separate and superior, leading to discrimination against “other” groups.

This theory is plausible on some levels. Firstly, the somewhat hostile

discriminatory behaviour demonstrated by the boys in the 1970’s experiment is
demonstrated in modern culture in the form of gang culture whereby members of
large groups, such as active rival American gangs the ‘Bloods’ and ‘Crips’, or
the I.R.A, engage in constant warfare simply due to their group identity and
shared group beliefs. Segregated groups seem to be a part of every day life with
the “us against them” attitude rife in schools, culture, politics, business, and
religion.

Significantly, ‘Social Identity Theory’ proposes that identity is fluid, that is,
people can have more than one identity; different identities are used in different
groups and situations. This also seems plausible because within Western Society,
it is natural for people to remain socially fluid (able to adapt their personality
to the situation they find themselves in) due to the number of different
interactions and environments experienced often in the space of just one day. It
is both likely, and necessary that a person would behave differently with certain
groups that they identity with, for instance, work colleagues, than with others,
such as their closest personal friends.

There are a number of weaknesses with Tajfel’s theory. Tajfel’s original

experiment used a group of teenaged boys in Bristol therefore it is difficult to
conclude that his sample is representative of the larger population. Rather, an
improved version would involve repeated experiments using either randomly selected
subjects, or a very mixed sample in terms of age, gender, race etc.

One significant extraneous variable which may have seriously tainted the validity
of Tajfel’s experiment results is the fact that there was a good chance that at
least some of the boys in the may have known one another and it is therefore
likely that at least some of them had preconceptions about the ‘status’ of certain
group members in comparison to others which could have effected their
discriminatory behaviour, and also, there may have been existing friendships
within the sample.

Another issue with Tajfel’s experiment is that it is impossible to know the extent
to which knowledge that they were taking part in an experiment effected the
behaviour of the boys, particularly as they were at a highly impressionable age;
there is significant risk that the presence of experimenters would effect
behaviours.
TMA 01 Section 2
DSE212
Andrew Douglas- Dunbar

Sarah Wood

Scenario 1

Q1

a. Within both settings, it would be essential for Mary to obtain full CRB
clearance before approaching the children. It is not enough to obtain
‘permission’; even the playgroup Head teacher and Governors do not have legal
power to grant access to vulnerable participants. It is essential that only those
with a clear criminal record where children are concerned, have one- on- one
access to them.

In the second setting, Mary is observing children in a public place without CRB
clearance, informed participant consent, or parental permission. It would be
inadvisable to conduct this observation in the manner described; without CRB
clearance, Mary would need express permission from an Ethics Committee.

b. Regardless of their age, it would be necessary to ensure that the children

understood that they were taking part in an experiment. In the first setting,
having obtained correct clearances and permission from parents, Mary could enlist
the help of the children’s teacher to explain the purpose of the experiment to the
children prior to observations so that they would have the option to withdraw if
they felt uncomfortable or frightened. It is likely that Mary herself would become
an uncontrollable variable because the children’s ‘natural’ play would be effected
because (1) the children might be inclined to “show off” to both Mary and one
another, and (2) natural play patterns might change due to Mary’s presence
effecting confidence or increasing levels of anxiety.

As mentioned, if Mary felt that prior briefing was not appropriate, she would need
express permission from an Ethics Committee.
c. It would be appropriate in the playschool setting, to arrange permission from
parents a long while before commencing research using detailed letters or a
meeting. It would be essential that the parents of the playschool children to have
a full understanding of the intentions of research and precisely what this
research would include at every stage, as well as possible effects on their
children both before, during, and after the experiment. It would also be
appropriate, particularly with young children, to give parents the opportunity to
be present during the observation should they feel this necessary.

They would also need to be provided with full contact information should it be
necessary for them to contact Mary with any concerns or further questions.

In the second setting, Mary would be unable to obtain parental consent without
arranging her research in advance, therefore Mary would need to either rearrange
an observation at a later date, or would need to have clearance from an Ethics
Committee to pursue her observation without informed consent.

d. It would be necessary under BPS Ethical guidelines for the parents of the child
participants, and as far as possible, the participants themselves, to have an in-
depth understanding of every aspect of the investigation, and its possible
effects.

With the first setting, Mary could provide detailed information for each one of
the parents in paper format, as well as her own contact details.

With the second setting, it would be unlikely that Mary would get the opportunity
to debrief parents as often, adults take both their own children and another
adult’s children at the same time, such that not all parents would be present to
be debriefed. There are also practical implications which would make this
difficult.

Scenario 2

Q2

The study breaches the following three guidelines most clearly;

1. Guideline 3.3

The students were exposed to high levels of stress which they would be very
unlikely to experience in their everyday lives. By believing that another person
was in serious, potentially mortal danger, and that they may need urgent
attention, the students may have experienced damaging effects both psychological
in terms of anxiety, and physical in terms of stress reactions such as increased
heart- rate.

2. Guideline 1.3

The students were unable to give informed consent to participate in the experiment
because they were outwardly lied to by the experimenters; they were not only not
told what the research would involve, they were actually told that they were doing
something else (discussing University).

3. Guideline 1.3

The students were not given full briefing before the commencement of the
experiment; they were not told exactly what the intended research focus was, what
precisely their participation would be or how the data would be collated and used.
The rights of the participants to receive ample understanding fo the experiment
were not respected.

Q3

Despite the value of the data obtained by both studies, it is ultimately not
appropriate for such studies to be allowed.

Though the feedback from students following the ‘Epilepsy’ experiment were
positive, this may have been due, at least in part, to the uneasiness and guilt
suffered by the participants when they realised that they would have been capable
of leaving a person in such distress. Similarly, the experimenters were in a
position of power both during and after the experiment; as such, the students may
have felt pressurised into agreeing with the assessments of the experimenters, or
may have been coerced into thinking that what happened was ‘a good lesson’ for
them.

Also, what exactly did the questionnaire handed to the participants contain? Were
they ‘open’ questions which aimed to gauge as precisely as possible the feelings
of the participant? Or were they based upon the angles assumed by those who
composed the questionnaire? It is impossible to gauge how harmful experiments such
as this could potentially be.

Ultimately, it is totally unethical to put human beings in situations which cause

them undue stress; all humans are different and it is impossible to know how a
person will cope with a stressful situation.

References:

Miell.D, Phoenix.A, Thomas.K, Mapping Psychology: chapters 1-5, The Open

University, 2007.