Task 2:
So, you have been shown 2 different methods of investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children.
Which do you think is the best and why?
Everyone must choose a study – B or C and then explain why they have chosen this study with reference to detail from the study.
Post your answers as a comment about this thread.
SBS School Psychology Department 
I choose Study B over Study C for a number of reasons, firstly Study B is done over a long period of time, 9 years, whereas Study C seems to just be about questtionnaires, the longer a study is, the data you will collect and the more data you have the more likely you are able to prove that your hypothosis is true.
However it could be argued that 9 years is actually too long, and it may be ethically questionable because the child will believe that their adoptive parents are their genetic parents,which could cause emotional distress when the child discovers the truth.
Secondly the children picked for Study B parent’s are between 20-30 years old, however for Study C, there is no specfic age for the parents, the less varibles (things you change) you have the better as it becomes easier to explain anomalies in your results.
Another example is that Study B explains that both groups of children will be raised in two identical enviroments, on the other hand Study C makes no reference to the enviroment where the children would grow up, this is also a factor that may effect the conclusions drawn for the experiment.
In summary I would choose Study B over C due to the fact, I believe the data gained from Study B will be a higher quantity and of a higher quality, although there is deception in the study which some people may see an unethical, in this case it is necessary as the children may act differently if they knew that their adoptive parents weren’t their biological parents.
I would choose study B over study C because I believe it would collect the more reliable data for educational psychologists and other scientists (such as doctors) to use.
I would choose study B because the variables are much more controlled; for example the twins must be identical and therefore have exactly the same gene structure this would mean that if one child has ADHD the other must also, if it is genetic, regardless of their environment. Whereas it study C the twins are not specified to be identical this means the genetics can be completely different and therefore results cannot be as accurate as in study B. The identical environment for the separated twins in study B also would result in clearer results as this mens apart from parenting there is very little external pressures to change the subjects behaviour however in study C only the subjects know of any external pressures on their behaviour which they may choose not to share with the person carrying out the experiment. The controlled age of subjects in study B also suggests that results would be clear as all the subjects would be developing at the same time however in study C the subjects could be of any age resulting in difficulties to test adults for ADHD and also as they have no deception older subjects could manipulate their answers on the questionnaires to suggest they do not have a ADHD as they may not want to be classed as having a ‘disorder’.
However this is also my only problem with study B is the complete neglect for ethics the subjects have no say in their participation, giving no consent (although one could argue as a baby they could not be informed) I would hope that the parents give consent for their child to be taken although this is not mentioned either. Also the subjects are being deceived for nine years of their life which at the end of those nine years would create a lot of mental distress which is completely avoided in study C.
Overall I would choose study B over study C because the control over the subjects would result in much clearer and reliable results. However study B could become very distressing for the subjects the deception could be necessary to ensure the subject behaves as they would in the the real world, whereas without deception in study C results could be manipulated by the subject.
The investigation which I believe to be the better of the two, is Study C. There are a number of reasons as to why I have chosen this investigation including issues surrounding and regarding the aim and outcome of the investigation, accuracy and reliability, informed consent, debriefing, protection of participants, deception, confidentiality and ability to withdraw from the study.
The outcome relating to the aim of a study is important because this is what provides the evidence for the conclusion of the experiment. If the investigation does not reflect the aim, then it may not be useful for what it was intended to conclude. The aim of studies B and C was to indicate whether or not children can or do inherit ADHD via genes passed on to them by their parents. Study C investigates this aim more clearly, as the only main independent variable in the study was if the child’s parent also has the condition. However, in Study B, as well as the independent variable being this, the child’s environment is also being manipulated and monitored. This makes the investigation harder to conclude because researchers may be unable to tell whether some children are developing the disorder due to their environment or due to their genes and which one of these has more of an impact on the child.
Another problem surrounding Study B is that of accuracy and reliability. Study B is likely to be less reliable than Study C because the children’s experiences during the experiment do not entirely represent their development in real life, due to the changed location the children are living in, whereas Study C keeps the children’s environments constant leading to the investigation relating more closely to the real development of the child. Researchers cannot be fully sure about how living in a sheltered setting affects a child’s progress in comparison with living in a normal, natural environment, thus making Study C the more reliable experiment.
Furthermore, Study B provides the participants with no debriefing and requires no informed consent. This breaches the ethical guidelines in psychological research. Without informed consent, participants in Study B are being held against their will, which is hugely unethical. The partakers are also not given a debrief, so they do not have a chance to ask questions about the study or get told about any deception that has taken place. This may cause trauma or distress post investigation. In contrast to this, participants in Study C have volunteered to take part and therefore, have given informed consent, as well as being given a debrief after the study has ended to avoid distress and provide opportunity for questions or inquiries. Contributors are also offered further support aside from the project if a diagnosis is given, which will reduce the impact the disorder has on the person’s life.
Study C does not deceive participants at all as they are told exactly what the study is about. Families also have the ability to withdraw from the experiment at any time. This reiterates that the investigation is purely voluntary. On the contrary, participants in Study B are deceived throughout the experiment, as they are not told exactly what is being monitored. The experiment also fails to mention any point of withdrawal that is available to contributors. This confirms that the study is forced, hence why no informed consent from participants is needed. This is largely unethical, as people’s basic rights have been removed. However, some people may argue that if children are fully aware as to what study is taking place they may, subconsciously, act differently. This may provide reason as to why deception is sometimes necessary and that informed consent and a debrief may be deemed more useful or reliable.
Lastly, Study B does not offer any protection of participants causing possible distress amongst the children and parents involved in the study, although the investigation does mention confidentiality that is present during the experiment: ‘they will be labeled Twin A and Twin B.’ Likewise, Study C states that ‘each questionnaire will be labeled with a case number rather than a name’ ensuring maximum confidentiality. Acts are also taken to protect participants such as a debrief, further support and withdrawal at any point.
After thoroughly considering the above points, it is clear that Study C is the far better of the two investigations and that while it may not be perfect, Study B has a lot of flaws that need to be addressed if the experiment was to ever take place.
I believe that study C is better than study B because of the obvious ethical issues that surround Study B, there are so many that the Study could not realistically take place. The study would cause the children a lot of distress and gives them no chance to withdraw from the experiment because they don’t know that the experiment is taking place. In Study B they don’t receive any consent, which would be ok if it was an everyday situation but this is not the case because they’re taking away from their biological parents, which is extremely unethical.
Although Study B is for a long period of time and will give extremely reliable results and is in this way much better than Study C, which is just a questionnaire so will not give such accurate results. Also the children and the people around them have no idea that the study is happening, so they will act naturally and will show the researchers truly the effects of having different types of parents. But this can not make up for the effects that Study B will have on the children who take part in the study.
Study C doesn’t deceive the participants, which means that they will be more happy to take part, because the whole way through the experiment they know exactly what is happening to them. It also studies the children who have been in completely natural circumstances their whole life, whereas Study B the whole situation the children are put in has been manipulated and may not give such accurate results. Another may that Study C is more sensitive is that they keep the participants data anonymous by keeping giving them case numbers instead of using their names, which may make the participants more likely to give truthful answers.
So overall i believe that Study C is a better experiment because its realistic and is an experiment that can actually happen because it has the participants interests in mind and is within all the standards that experiments must reach to be allowed to happen. Also it will give relatively reliable results because they will be asking a lot of people. Although there may be other factors that effect the children in their lives that can’t be controlled, the questionnaire should be able to find out what these are and analyse it well.
I think that study C is the best method because it follows the ethical guidelines of psychological research and still measures what it sets out to in the aim. The main reason that I have chosen study C is because during the procedure of the experiment, the participants give informed consent, there is no deception in the study and withdrawal from the investigation is allowed at any point. All of these benefits protect the participants from any distress that the research might cause, however study B shows none of these regulations. This shows that study C puts the safety of the volunteers before the results of the research, showing a more ethical attitude towards the experiment.
Study B deceives the children straight from the start and takes away their right to a normal life. Instead, the children grow up without their twin or even their biological parents, which will surely cause them distress in the future. It is held for nine years because the scientists are looking for reliable data, although the twins grow up in a different environment to how they would in real life anyway, so how reliable can it be? Although the length of time of the first study might seem like an advantage over study C, the fact that the parents haven’t spent nine years filling out a questionnaire doesn’t mean that they haven’t known and watched their children carefully while growing up. Therefore, the parents can give just as much information filling out the questionnaires as scientists can gain from the methods in study B.
One problem with study C is that it is possible that parents might not want to answer questions completely honestly, which would cause inaccuracy. However, this seems unlikely given that the parents would not have volunteered to respond to the survey in the first place if they were reluctant to share information. Plus they are given plenty of opportunities to withdraw from the experiment and the scientists use case numbers instead of actual names which ensures the data is kept confidential. Similarly, study B also keeps its information confidential, although this may be the only ethical part of their experiment. Study B neglects the majority of the ethical guidelines, not waiting for the children to become old enough to give informed consent or offering a debrief at the end of the study.
Overall, I definitely think that study C is the better option because both experiments have the same aim and both end up either testing the children or the parents for ADHD via normal diagnostic procedures, but study C uses more ethical methods to get there.
I have chosen study B over study C.
One reasons for my choice is that the results will be much more accurate as the participants would live normally and would not be able to manipulate the data. Also, being away from the parents would allow natural inherited behaviours to come out without being enforced by the parents behaviours. This would allow the researchers to gather accurate results that have not been manipulated. If ADHD is developed from nurture over nature then island A will most likely have more children developing ADHD. This would then prove that the disorder is not inherited. Keeping the conditions on each island the same will also help ensure the results are fair and as accurate as possible; showing the study is the best one. Finally, the length of time the children are apart and on the island allows the disorder to develop if need be, the long period of time once again ensures a higher level of accuracy in results.
Study C, in my opinion, is much less accurate as questionnaires can be highly manipulated with false answers or participants ‘suger-coating’ their answers. The study is a lot less controlled which undoubtedly leads to a fall in the level of definitiveness and accuracy therefore making the data less reliable. Also, asking questions such as what age twins have shown similar behaviours from could be difficult to remember exactly, so answers could be vague and, again, unreliable.
However there is no deception in study C and participants are fully aware of their involvement. They have the opportunity to pull out of the study at any time which gives the participants security and protection.
My only two issues with study B is that the level of deception and confidentiality is fictitious, as the participants have no idea what they are involved in and are put under the impression that they re living their normal life. Participants are never asked whether or not they want to take part and are not told until the end that they were part of an investigation. My other issue is that telling the twins about their true identity after 9 years would leave mental issues within the children. They would be leaving everything they know and would have doubts about who they are and would most likley feel that their whole life has been a lie. Mentally injuring the children could lead to further mental issues in their later life.
In summery, study B is much better for accuracy and getting the best results for the investigation possible.
I have chosen study C as the best for a number of reasons. I believe this is the better investigation as both studies have the same aim of examining whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder however investigation C uses a more ethical procedure to collect the results.
Study C uses informed consent as volunteers are used and they are told the purpose of the experiment, what will be involved during the study and where the data collected will be used. Study B however fails to receive any consent this highlights a key ethical problem as this experiment would not happen in the participant’s daily life. The participants would not naturally be separated from both their biological parents and their twin and sent to live with foster parents for 9 years. Furthermore Study C doesn’t not use any deception as the participants are informed about the aims of the research at the start of the procedure. The participants are also protected from any physical and mental harm as the risk is no greater than in ordinary life. Study B on the other hand does involve deception as the twins are wrongly informed due to them not knowing that foster parents are raising them. This deception could lead to the twins becoming distressed once they find out the truth. It will come as a big surprise that they aren’t who they think they are and are just being sent back to live with their biological parents who are strangers to them. This risk is greater than any risk of harm that they could face in ordinary life and so I think study B does not protect the mental health of the participants. Study C also allows withdrawal from the investigation, as the participants do not have to send back the questionnaires. Study B however doesn’t make withdrawal available as the experiment ends when the twins are 9 years old. As the participants are not aware that they are involved in the study they therefore cant withdraw. At the end of Study C the parents are informed of the results and are offered support. In contrary the twins in study B are just sent back to live with their biological parents after 9 years. The study shows no sign of a debriefing or any offered support. Both experiments do however keep participants information and data confidential as in study B the twins are given pseudonyms and in study C they are given a case number.
Both studies collect reliable and accurate data. Study B is better in this sense as it collect data over 9 years which therefore means that a higher quantity of information will be collected from the participants. However 9 years is an extremely long time for the children and so will leave psychological scars whereas study C will not. Both studies are collecting the same data and are testing the participants following the same ADHD testing diagnostic procedures however they are using very different ethical methods.
Overall I believe that study C is the best investigation as it follows all of the ethical guidelines and is realistic. The twins are not put in any danger of physical or mental harm and although the results aren’t quite as conclusive as those of study B’s they will answer the main question of the investigation.
Although study B does include some good ideas such as: the idea of testing whether the enviroment the children are in can affect them having ADHD; and also the way that the study is run over 9 years, ensuring that they have plenty of time to run the experiment to get a more accurate result.
However, I think that study B is not a good study as it is very unethical to take a child from their biological parents and keep the fact that the foster parents are not their real parents. Also, the fact that they will be taken from their foster parents after forming relationships over the 9 years is extremely unethical and could damage the children. The study goes against several of the ethical guidelines. Firstly, it goes against ‘informed consent’. Because the children are unable to give their consent to take part in the study when it begins as they are new born babies, what happens to the participants is supposed to be something that could happen to them in everyday life. However, being taken from their biological parents and having to live with foster parents for the first 9 years of their life is not something that would happen in everyday life.It also goes again the guideline ‘protection of the participants’ as the participants are not supposed to be made distressed, and for the children finding the foster parents are not their real parents and have been lied to would probably be very distressing, especially for such young children; therefor it could affect them in later life. Lastly it goes against ‘withdrawal form an investigation’ as the children and parents will not be able to withdraw until the 9 years have finished, and the guideline says they have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.
Because of this aswell as the good ideas the study contains, I think that study C is the better experiment. There are several reasons that make me think this, the first being that study C is far more ethical than study B. I think this because the people being used in the experiment are volunteering themselves, whereas the children in study B are not given a choice as to whether they take part and are forced to from birth. In addition to this, the study C specifically says that the participants can withdraw, and so unlike study B this does not go against the ethical guideline ‘withdrawal from investigation’. What is also good about the study is that it is using a totally random sample of participants. The organisers do not know who will visit the hospitals, GP surgeries or schools and so do not know which people will volunteer themselves for the study. Also, lots of different people- teachers, children and parents, are all included in each case in the study. This means that with more people opinions they can get more evidence and data from the result, making it a more accurate test. Lastly, what is good about the test is that as well as collecting data, families may also find out results affecting them personally. When this happends, the study offers support for the people and so additionally helps ensure that as little distress is caused as possible.
In conclusion I think that study C is the better study as it is far more ethical than study B, and also helps provide information and help for individual people who made it, as well as providing useful scientific information on whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
I would choose study B over study C because I don’t think that study C meets the aims set out as the parent of the child has not been officially diagnosed with ADHD. The answers are from actions and memories that these parents have recalled from memory and may not be accurate. Whereas study B will be more reliable as it is carried out over 9 years, it will also give informative results as the procedure is very detailed and will meet the aims set out by giving only four possible outcomes which can then be interpreted.
In study B however there are many ethical guidelines that must be considered in psychological research which have not been met, for example the subjects can’t give an informed consent as they are babies but I presume that the parents have given consent for their babies to be taken away, although it is highly unlikely for this to happen. There is also no debrief offered at the end of the 9 years when they are just sent back to their genetic parents. The participants are not being protected from any physical or mental harm that may occur at the end of the experiment as they have been separated from their genetic parents and their own twin. There is also deception in study B as they are being separated and at no point the children will be told about the experiment or that their foster parents are not their biological parents. However the subjects would be given pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality and all adults who would come into contact with the children will be unaware of the purpose of the study. As the subjects for this investigation are babies at the very start they are not aware that they have a right to withdraw at any time from it and they cannot withdraw because they are oblivious to what is happening.
On the other hand Study C would meet the ethical guidelines in psychological research as the subjects give consent as they volunteer themselves to take part. The parents and children are also offered a debrief and support afterward if a diagnosis was given. The participants are protected as the questionnaire does not cause any harm and they are allowed to withdraw at any time and also choose not to send the questionnaire back. The confidentiality is also maintained as they have a case number rather than a name.
With these points all taken into consideration I conclude that study B would be the best to carry out to investigate the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder although it would be very controversial as you would be interfering with these children’s lives massively without consent.
I have chosen study C over study B for a number of reasons. However, it is mainly the ethical issues that study B poses which convinced me to choose study C.
Firstly, study C uses volunteers which have given informed consent, to test on. This already gives the test subjects a sense of trust towards the psychologists as they know exactly what they are signing up to take part in. On the other hand, study B does not specify the parents giving informed consent on behalf of their children. This also raises the important issue of whether or not the children want to take part in the experiment. While I understand that at the start they are unable to make a decision for themselves, at the end when the child is 9 they may feel like they have been used without their consent. They could also react badly to the foster parents/their biological parents for separating their family at birth. In an extreme case this could result in other mental disorders such as anxiety or paranoid personality disorder.
Secondly, though I do believe that the data collected in study B could be more accurate, the lengths it would take to get these results should not be permitted. The fact that the participants from study B will be tested over a period of 9 years will increase the quality of the results, and the size of the experiment in general would also contribute to the quality of the results. However, the size of the experiment equals the amount of stress the participants have to go through. In study C, the questionnaire requires answers that will give knowledge as to the children, their parents and how they were brought up.
Finally, the cost to carry out study C would be very little. The cost to carry out study B would be a lot bigger as it is going on for longer so the pay of the trained researchers would be bigger and the equipment needed would be very expensive; CCTV cameras for each child, as well as making sure each child is brought up in equal environments.
In conclusion I think that study C is the better option because even though the data collected wouldn’t be as accurate, it would still give helpful results. It is also the more ethical of the two and is less likely to end in psychological trauma. In addition it is the cheaper of the two by a long way.
‘Study B’ and ‘Study C’ both set out to meet the same aim; ‘To investigate the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder’. Although both studies help achieve this aim, I believe that Study C is the best method of obtaining this information for a number of reasons.
‘Study B’ does help gain accurate knowledge surrounding the investigation. The experiment will have conclusive results that show whether being raised by parents with ADHD affects the chance of a child developing it, despite tall the subjects being possibly genetically predisposed. I believe that while the information obtained would be much more thorough, it is ethically wrong for many reasons. Firstly, the study does not obtain informed consent from the subjects. The participants were not made aware about the study and information influencing their entire lives was withheld from them. This is morally wrong because if they were made aware of the study it is highly likely that they would object to their lives being manipulated and observed without having any say in the matter. Another ethical issue is that at the end of the study, although the subjects may be debriefed, they’re expected to live with their ‘biological parents’ who would be strangers to them. While also being separated from the people they perceive to be their parents. The study will most likely cause distress, the subjects may suffer mental harm when they realise that their whole lives have been an experiment, and that they are expected to change the way they live so suddenly. Another reason I think the study is unethical is that they were not given the option to withdraw at any point in the study due to the fact they were not aware they were part of it. Despite all these ethical guideline breaches, confidentially is still kept by giving the subjects pseudonyms so that no names are used in the final report.
‘Study C’ also meets the aims of the investigation, by analysing the parent’s chances of having ADHD and the child’s outcome. This data can then be processed to see if there is any correlation between parents having ADHD and the children having ADHD. Although it does not consider the possibility that nurture is a key element; making it less reliable that ‘Study B’. Confidentially was also maintained with no names mentioned in the final report. Ethical guidelines were followed throughout the investigation. The participants gave consent – they were all volunteers and were informed of the study’s purpose and how the data would be used, and received a debrief where their part in the research was explained, and their results returned to them, help was also offered if they wanted it. The study would not cause any distress or harm to the participants, and if the subjects felt otherwise they were offered support and the option to withdraw from the investigation. As well as this study does not differ from everyday situations meaning the subjects were not put in harm’s way. The subjects were fully aware of the situation and procedures they were participating in at every stage, and at multiple points the subjects were given the opportunity to withdraw their data.
Taking all aspects of the studies into consideration I believe that ‘Study C’ is the best investigation to use. I think this because comparing the two, it is obvious that ‘Study B’ causes distress to the subjects and is very manipulative, whereas ‘Study C’ is supportive of the subjects and causes no harm by following ethical guidelines. Although ‘Study B’ would produce better results in meeting the aim of the investigation, I think that the breaking of the guidelines causes more harm and distress than the data is worth, leading me to choose ‘Study C’ as the best investigation.
I choose study B rather than study C due to the investigation being much more controlled. An example of this would be how the diagnosis of ADHD must come from the same reliable source (NHS). In doing this the researchers can ensure that the parents all have the same symptoms which the NHS look for when diagnosing. In doing this the experiment is much more reliable as the parents will all share the same bahavioural patterns, minmising any differences in the lifestyles off all the children.
Throughout both the investigations you can clearly see the battle between ethics and reliaibility. Study B focused much more in ensuring the investigation was reliable whereas study C focused much more on ensuring the investigation was ethically ok. In my opinion it was more important to have a reliable study due to what the study may result in. If the researchers found that ADHD was a genertic disorder then it may lead too possibly finding a medicaion that could prevent the offspring displaying the disorder. Therefore although some of the ethics of for example not telling the child that he/ she is living with a foster parent could be considered ethically unjust it would be for the greater good in general.
I think that study C is the best mainly due to the ethical issues of study B.
In study B the participants had no chance to withdraw from the investigation as they were not aware that the study was purely for research as they believed it was real life. However in study C the participants were volunteers so there was informed consent as they were aware of what was involved and could withdraw from the investigation by choosing not to send back the questionnaire. This shows how ethically study C is better as it has taken the emotions and feelings of the participants into account.
Additionally, experiment C provided much more protection of participants than experiment B. Study C provided support to any parents or siblings who via the research received a ADHD diagnosis. In contrast experiment B would have created much more distress among the participants. Including the foster parents, the children being investigated and the real parents, they would have all been affected emotionally at the end the experiment as they found out that their life was not what they believed. However no protection or support is provided for all these involved.
Although experiment B may get better and more reliable results as the participants in experiment C answering the questionnaire may not answer truthfully or not genuinely. This would create false results. Therefore the behaviour which will be analysed in experiment B will be more accurate as the behaviour is genuine.
Based on other factors i believe study C is the best. It is acceptable as all the ethical guidelines were followed, unlike study B, which is most important.
Both studies B and C have their merits, and both do provide data looking into whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
Study B is effective because it creates an environment that makes it easy to observe the development of the subjects. The identical conditions of both islands mean that it will be easy to see which subjects develop “behaviours conducive with ADHD.” This will mean that it will show whether the subjects that come from families where the parents have ADHD are the ones that end up being diagnosed, or if it is the subjects from the parents who don’t have ADHD who develop to have behaviours conducive with ADHD. This will then show us conclusively whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder or not.
Study C in comparison uses Questionnaires to gather it’s results. We can infer that the scientist will then record the differences between the questionnaires done about each twin or parent etc.
In my opinion i think the data from Study B will be more conclusive than the results in Study C for a few main reasons. The Environment in study 2 is well controlled and the subjects are constantly monitored. Whereas the data in study C may not be reliable. As there is a lack of control during the Data Gathering stage. For example there is no guarantee that the subjects are completely truthful. Furthermore there may be some errors due to the subjects potentially not being able to answer the questions in enough depth/accuracy. Study C also does not really discuss looking at the differences between children diagnosed with ADHD and children without ADHD. Or parents with ADHD vs. parents without ADHD. This in my opinion makes certain parts of the investigation unclear.
Both Investigations do make attempts to protect the subjects. For example Study B provides the twins with pseudonyms, conversely Study C labels the questionnaires with a case number rather than a name.
As far as the ethics is concerned Study B basically violates the well-being of basically everyone involved. The twins are separated at birth and then raised by foster parents. For 9 years. Not only are the subjects separated from their siblings. They also will not know their biological parents for the first 9 years of their life. Meaning when they are debriefed any emotional attachment to their foster parents will have been meaningless. This can potentially be traumatic. It is not only the children that will be affected either, the foster parents will also have grown to care about the children.
Study C unlike Study B also mentions providing after support to help those diagnosed with ADHD, both in education and in family life. Whereas Study B doesn’t mention anything about after care or support. I think it should considering the severity of it’s ethics.
In summary both of these experiments have to balance the quality of the results with the ethics of the investigation. Study B lacks ethics but in my opinion has the better potential for results. Whereas Study C lacks in my opinion effective Data but is ethical in it’s approach.
Neither is better or worse as a result.
Although both study’s appear to meet the aims they have set out, i believe that study C is the best.
Firstly, this experiment has informed consent from the participants as they have to volunteer to become involved in the research. This means they know what their part is in the investigation and they could be asked to fill in a questionnaire by anyone so is quite a natural situation. Also the participants would probably be debriefed at the end of the experiment however this may not even be necessary due to the fact that they knew what the experiment involved at the beginning.
Furthermore experiment C would not physically or mentally harm the participants unlike experiment B which would potentially cause distress to the children when they find out that for the first 9 years of their life they have been separated from their parents and twin, lived with a foster family who they believed where their biological parents and observed through CCTV cameras. The questionnaire would cause no abnormal risks that they would not usually experience in their usual lifestyles.
In experiment C, there would be little deception as participants would be aware of what they are volunteering for whereas experiment B would deceive the participants hugely as they would not know they were taking part in an experiment. In contrast, both experiments would probably involve confidentiality yet experiment B may be less confidential as all adults who come into contact with the children will be aware a study is taking place.
As part of the ethical guidelines, withdrawal from an investigation is important which i think experiment C includes as parents participating are able to withdraw simply by not sending their questionnaire back. On the other hand participants are unable to withdraw because they do not know of the investigation in experiment B.
Finally, although experiment B lasts for a longer period of time, for 9 years, and may be more accurate i think that this is an extreme length of time for the participants who are children, particularly because they are unaware of the experiment so are being misled. The questionnaire and then the ADHD test would still be fairly accurate. Also, i think experiment C meets the ethical guidelines more accurately than experiment B as well as being easier to set up and being more realistic.
Although study B would be a accurate way of showing whether attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a genetically inherited disorder or not, I believe that it will be ethically wrong as it has no concept of how it will effect the children taking part, as they take them away from their biological parents at a very young age, split the twins up and keep them completely oblivious to the experiment going on around them. this is why i think that study C is the best.
Study C is the best as it keeps there volunteers up to speed with everything that is happening and will happen so they can decide if they really want to do the experiment. For this experiment thee parents and people who are in contact with the children have to answer a questionnaire. this is a much better way than study B which could case a lot of distress to the families as it splits them up and keeps them apart where as study C doesn’t and keeps the families together.
There is one other main problem with the study B which is that it is going to cost a lot of money- they need to have access to two completely identical islands with the same resorces where 20 children can be brought up for a 9 years.after thus study there is not sort of debrief or counciling to help the children and families involved to get over the fact that they suddenly have to go and live with their real biological parents who they had no idea about. this is another reasin that i choose study C as it offers support to help the families if one of the children is diagnosed with ADHD.
I believe that study C is the better study case as it keeps the families identities safe by using case numbers and letting them look at the questionnaire but they don’t have to send it in if they don’t want to. Also their is support for the families after the experiment is over just in case they need anything from help with family life or education if a diagnosis given.
I think out of the two investigations, study C is a better experiment than study B. Study B does not take any ethical issues into consideration. Firstly, the children are separated from their twin at birth and are taken away from their parents; this is unacceptable for both the parents and the children and could result in long term emotional harm for both parties. In addition, the children are given back to the parents at the age of 9 not having been told the foster parents were not their real parents which would be very emotionally distressing for the child which is likely to result in long term emotional damage. The children are not given a choice on whether they can participate and are unable to withdraw from the experiment as they are unaware it is going on which is deceiving the child. Because of these ethical issues, study B would not be able to be done in real life.
Although study B is done under a very controlled environment it does not reflect real life as the twins are separated at birth and given to two foster parents, some of which both the foster parents have ADHD and statistically, it is unlikely a child would have two parents which both have ADHD. This makes in an inaccurate experiment.
Study C does not have any unethical issues; the participants are not deceived and are given support if one of the children or parents is diagnosed with ADHD whereas study B does not say it gives any kind of support if the child is diagnosed with ADHD or has any kind of emotional problems from the experiment.
I think study B would also be a lot harder to conduct because most parents would not want to part with their child for the first 9 years of its life whereas in study C parents would be a lot more likely to let their children and themselves participate in the experiment.
Another good thing about experiment C is that before they consider taking part in the experiment they are aware of what it involves because the poster will have said.
Overall I think study C is the best experiment of the two mainly because of the ethical issues that surround study B and study C would be a lot easier to get results for because it is shorter to conduct and more people are likely to participate.
In my opinion, I believe Study C is the best for various reasons. The most obvious reason being that Study B is not very ethical and investigations being ethical is highly important.
In Study B, the subjects are not given informed consent. The twins are unaware that they are part of an investigation and are also taken away from their biological parents. Although this is very unethical, the subjects should act more naturally than the subjects in Study C.However, all participants should have a right to know that they are taking part in an investigation.
Study B is however longer (9 years) which suggests that the results will be more accurate. It investigates whether twins that are brought up by parents with ADHD plays an important role in their life. However, you should also take into consideration that the twins are away from their biological parents and will not have a strong relationship with them once returned. This could also mean that it can cause mental harm to the twins as they have to be told that their foster parents are not their biological parents. It can cause a lot of distress to the families as they have to be split up and during those 9 years the twins will become closer to their foster parents rather than their biological parents. This shows that there is no protection of participants. Whereas in Study C, the participants were informed about the investigation clearly and no harm is done. However, results can be less accurate as participants could give the false information in questionnaires.
Study B and C did both maintain confidentiality. No names or personal information were revealed about the participants. So they do share one good aspect.
Study B is also very unethical as the participants are unable to withdrawal from the investigation as they are unaware of the investigation. In Study C, the participants are able to withdrawal from the investigation which makes it fair and a better study.
Overall, I believe that Study C is better as it meets more of the ethical guidelines in psychological research. Although it may not be as accurate as Study B, the protection of participants is more important. It is also best as it is not as long as Study B so it will be easier to conduct.
I choose study C over study B for many reasons. Although they both set out to investigate the same thing they have done so in very different ways.
Study B seems like it would give the better result as it looks as if it is a lot more thought out and is done over a 9 year period, but there are lots of factors which go against ethics and the well being of the subjects in the study which should be a main priority in this investigation. Study C takes the more basic approach to investigating whether ADHD is genetically inherited, but it meets all the ethical guidelines for the experiment.
I do not think it is right for children to be taken away from their biological parents at birth and grow up for 9 years without them. The fact that they are sent back to their biological family after 9 years is not ethically right. It breaches the protection of participants because mentally they may not be stable enough to accept that the people they have grown up and lived with for such a large and memorable part of their life were not actually their biological parents. Also having to meet their real parents for the first time may be very distressing for them.
Experiment C informs the participants of the purpose of the study and also allows them to withdraw from the study if they wish to. Whereas in experiment B they are not given a choice in whether they want to take part or not.
Overall i think that study C is ethically better and more reliable than study B.
I would choose Experiment C over Experiment B. This is because of two reasons, C is more ethically acceptable and the experiment is more practical.
Experiment C is more ethically acceptable as it follows all the guidelines given to protect participants during the experiment. The psychologists follow the guidelines, advertising for willing participants in their experiment whilst also briefing and debriefing them into the intentions of the survey. Finally, they give the option to withdraw from the experiment if the child/parents wishes to, causing no harm or stress to the participants.
Whereas in experiment B, they ignore the guidelines set. They ignore the “Debrief” as the parents and children are not told anything about the experiment, they have no information about what is going to happen or what will happen once the experiment is complete.
The people running the experiment also ignore the guideline that there should be no “Deception”. The researchers are being deceitful as they have not told the participants about who their real parents are, that they were not from the island they have been moved to or that they have another sibling on a different island.
The final guideline they overlook is the ability to “Withdraw from an Investigation”. The children have not been given this option, nor have the parents of the children. Through overlooking this guideline, they have also ignored the “Protection of Participants” rule. As they can not remove themselves from the investigation and neither can their parents, the biological family may go through distress and/or mental harm.
The second reason I would choose Experiment C is because of the practicality of the experiment. In C, they have created a simple survey to find whether the children have been “display[ing] similar behaviours” to the parents, teachers and children. The survey is semi-structured giving room for a variety of answers. By conducting the experiment in this way, it is easy to create, distribute and is cheap to perform.
However, for Experiment B to go forward, they need to recreate two identical islands with identical environment, climate, food availability, education, TV, playgrounds and pet animals. To do this it would be extremely expensive or even impossible, in theory the idea could work but to put it into practise the idea is flawed.
Therefore, I believe when the experiments are put into practise, Experiment C is the most reasonable and conductible of the investigations.
I believe that the most acceptable experiment would be Experiment C due to the ethical issues regarding researching potential inheritance of ADHD in families and also due to how realistic the experimant is.
Experiment C would be a better choice as it follows the ethical guidelines of an experiment such as this one more appropriately than Experiment B. For example, the participants involved in this research are there voluntarily and therefore the candidates have the freedom to be involved or not. A debrief is not mentioned at the end of the experiment; however considering the fact that the experiment was advertised on posters in hospitals we can assume that a debrief is unnecessary as the participants already know what is going to happen. Participants are protected during the experiment as it consists of a questionnaire answered in their own home so there is no threat of mental or physical harm. In general, Experiment C sticks to the guide lines strictly, ensuring the experiment is safe for the people being tested unlike in Experiment B in which the majority of the Experiment would be considered inappropriate to perform as Twins would be separated from their families and deceived into believing that their foster parents are their real parents. This is unfair on the children and the biological parents as there is the possibility of causing problems emotional trauma for the families, making the experiment unethical.
Another reason Experiment C is a better choice is because it is a much more realistic interpretation of everyday life. Candidates answer a questionnaire in their own homes about their everyday behavior patterns where as Experiment B simulates a normal family, but separating sets of twins and placing them on identical islands is not a normal thing that happens.
There are issues with the experiment however, a the fact that is a questionnaire could manipulate the results as the answers given by participants may not be completely honest. Experiment B occurs over 9 years and therefor has a much broader range of results.
Overall, Experiment C is the better option as it is much more ethical than separating families for a long period of time and is safer for the participants; it is also a more realistic experiment to perform.
I think that study C is the best. I believe this based on how it meets the different criteria regarding what makes a good experiment.
Firstly I believe that study C is superior as it is generally more ethical than study B; in study B the ‘experimenters’ had not received informed consent from the children and therefore the children were taking part in an experiment unknowingly which could be considered unfair and cruel by many. I know this as the experiment began when the children were newborn babies and so therefore they were unable to give consent to any kind of experimentation, especially not experimentation where they’re obliviously taken away from their biological parents and led to believe that strangers (half of which with the medical disorder ADHD) are their real parents and then only to thrust back into reality (which for them will seem quite the opposite having become accustomed to their alternate reality) and having lived the first 9 years of their life living a lie. In study C, the children were volunteering themselves for the experiment and knew full well what it was for, etc. In study B they were not even told the purpose of the experiment because they didn’t even know it was occurring!
Secondly, because the children were obviously unaware that the experiment was happening they wouldn’t have had to option to withdraw from the investigation which is also unfair and doesn’t meet the criteria for what makes a legitimate experiment. In study C, the parents could withdraw from the investigation if they wished through means of not returning their questionnaire form.
Furthermore, in study C the children or the parents were not deceived in any way whilst in study B the children were led to believe that their real, biological parents were people who were not and they were living in a doctored environment, where all their interactions were observed. They were unaware of all of this and were basically being lied to their whole life. Also when they found out that their real biological parents are elsewhere it must be fairly traumatic for them and so therefore this means that they wouldn’t be being ‘protected’ by the experimenters and they’d be mentally hurt or scarred perhaps.
Finally, in study C the names of the parents and the children were kept confidential and the results were referred to as case numbers for security of the child and the parent and therefore this is another reason why study C is better.
To conclude I would say that study C is a lot better than study B because it is a lot more safer, ethical, fair and secure. This is achieved through a lack of deception, an agreed informed consent and an option to withdraw from the investigation if need be.
I believe that experiment C is the best. I have come to this decision after assessing the qualities of both possible experiments.
A point that can be made is the practicality of each experiment. overall i would say that experiment C is the most practical as the test in B takes 9 years and you need two separate islands with exactly the same climate, food availability and education levels. In comparison to this option C is questionnaires, completed by volunteers all of which comes at small expense as an alternative to experiment B.
Another topic of discussion would be the ethical issues surrounding both of the proposed test.
In experiment B many issues are not addressed by the plans. For example subjects of the tests were not able to give formal consent as the tests begin when they are new born, they are taken from the biological parents and they are unable to stop this. This clear deception of subjects is a huge ethical issue which is a downfall to the plans of experiment B
Another issue surrounding option B is the fact that subjects loose the first 9 years of there life, they may make friendships during these years but once ‘released’ back into normal life all of this will have been a lie and they will in effect have to start there lives, this can not be fair on someone who didn’t even want to take part in the test in the first place.
A final ethical issue with experiment B is the lack of options the subjects have when taking part in the tests. They have no option of withdrawal purely due the the fact they know nothing about what is going on as they are oblivious to the tests.
All of these issues with option B are a vast contrast to option C. it is clear that when planning the proposed tests, ethical issues were a big part of their considerations. all tests were carried out on a voluntary basis and therefore all subjects had given their consent. All tests were fully explained to the subjects meaning they were fully aware of what is going on and that means that there was no deception. Participants were fully protected as they were given case numbers rather than their own names for confidentiality reasons. As a last resort all participants were given in the option to withdraw from the tests meaning they were in control of what was going on.
In conclusion, due to the large numbers of negatives surrounding the plans for experiment B it makes it impossible for me to chose it as the most suitable for testing whether or not ADHD is linked to genetic. This, alongside the great ethical considerations of experiment C mean that i have to choose option C as the best possible experiment
I think that overall Study C is the best. This is because it meets the ethical guidelines as well as providing a reliable result.
I believe that Study B is not ethical as it fails to meet ethical requirements. Firstly it separates the twins from each other and their biological parents, this could easily cause mental harm to both, as well as causing long term emotional distress. Furthermore the twins do not give any informed consent or given the option to withdraw at any point during the 9 years of the experiment and so are deceived because of this. At the end of the study they are not informed of what has happened or offered support on the basis of the diagnosis, they are simply returned to their biological parents with out being told that there foster parents are not related to them. This again could cause distress to both children and the parents because they will have formed a stronger bond with their foster parents than their real parents and so could result in a weak family relationship. However because the experiment is drawn out over a longer period of time (9 Years) and the children are unaware of the experiment it could conclude with more comprehensive results than experiment C.
Despite that, Study C can also provide a reliable result given that the sample size is large enough and it gives questions which can be conclusive to the aim of the study. In addition to that it also applies to all of the ethical guidelines. It is clear from the outset what the experiment is about and what the participants part to play is, so there is no deception and they can give informed consent. They are also given the option to withdraw at any point and offered support on the results of the experiment which is not given to participants from Study B. The participants remain anonymous throughout the study which also gives them confidence to be truthful in answering the questions.
I believe that Study C is the most acceptable experiment. As well as it being realistic, it is ethical and won’t cause any mental harm which Study B could do.
Out of the two studies I would personally choose B over C.
Study B is the better of the two for a range of different reasons. Firstly because of the level of control the researchers have in the experiment. The requirements narrow down the possible candidates to a very limited amount, this gives the experiment less variables to affect the data. This means the data gathered will give us the closest possible answer. Another merit of experiment B is that the children’s parents either both have ADHD or neither have ADHD. This means that when we look at the results we can determine if ADHD is genetically inherited or not. It also allows us to see if your parents having ADHD does affect your chances of getting it. Study B is also a lot longer than C. This means that it allows enough time for signs of ADHD to come out in the child. Meanwhile in C the children may not show signs of it yet and so give incorrect data. Finally in study B the children have no idea they are in an experiment, this means they cannot subconsciously act differently. This means that all their behaviour is completely natural and so if they do show signs of ADHD then they are real and not fake.
However study B has some major floors and problems. Firstly it is very unethical. It breaks or ignores the majority of the ethical guidelines. This would mean that the experiment would get rejected when sent for review. Secondly the requirements for the experiment are very specific and so would make it difficult to find suitable candidates. For example It would be difficult to find 10 sets of twins all born on their due dates to parents aged between 20-30. Another problem with study B is then telling the children after 9 years that it was an experiment. This would be very unethical as the children would have been living an almost ‘fake’ like for the past 9 years. This would lead to adjustment problems when being reunited with their parents. Finally the experiment would be very expensive. To have two identical islands for 9 years with at least 50 people on each would cost a lot of money. This would make the experiment difficult to carry out as it would need a lot of funding.
Study C is by no means a bad experiment; it is ethically aware and takes into account the guidelines. It also is a lot easier to carry out than B and would be a lot cheaper too. However I feel that the quality of data from C would be a lot lower than B. This is because experiment C is based on the results of the questionnaires, the answers of which are subjective. This means that for the same person two different people could answer very differently. This would ruin the results as there would be no real science behind the answers given.
Therefore I believe that experiment B is the best.
I believe study C is the better study, as study B is unethically in lots of ways. Firstly the twins are taken away from their biological parents at birth, this would cause stress on the parents when taken and on the kids when they find out 9 years later. Also they do not get informed consent as they are taken at birth and are not told for nine years they are part of a study which means deception is used on a large scale. Another unethical thing done in this study is the fact because they don’t know they are in a study they don’t get the option of a withdrawal from the investigation. Further more after this whole study the twins that have lived with these foster parents for 9 years are more likely to not want to go back to their biological parents as they would have gained an emotional attachment to their foster parents.
Study C I clearly a lot better as this time the participants are volunteers rather than being taken like in study B, this will mean little distress will be caused to the people in the study. Also the poster informs them about the experiment at the start so there is no deception in the study. Another reason its better than study B is that the parents get a chance to withdraw from the study unlike in B when they didn’t know they were in the study till the end. On the whole study C is a lot easier experiment to carry out as you don’t need to set out a whole island and sort out where to get twins and foster parents from, while still getting the results needed to achieve the aim of investigating the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
This is why study C is better as although study B may get more reliable results as the twins don’t know they are in an experiment where as the parents do and could effect their answers to the questionnaire, it is still to unethical to be carried out.
I would choose study C over study B
Although C would have had more reliable data and more data in general which means you have more to support your hypothesis however I believe that the ethical issues render it unusable and cruel, certain ethical parameters need to be met in psychology and none of these have been met in this study . The unethical issues being that the twins are separated at birth and sent away for 9 years, this could cause emotional trauma or at least distress and possible mental illnesses such as paranoia or anxiety. When the experiment is over and they are sent back to their biological parents whom they would not know as they would believe that their adoptive parents are their biological ones. Also the participants did not give consent meaning they were forced and deceived for 9 years however it is not specified if the biological parents gave consent on the subjects’ behalf. In addition the subjects are observed by hidden CCTV cameras which add to the unethical issues as it is an invasion of privacy.
Study C would be more appropriate seeing as the participants are volunteers and can withdraw from the experiment at any point. Although there are not many specifications in C like how old the children or parents are and if both parents, one or neither parent have ADHD. Also the cost for study C would be considerably lower and this is a key factor for a psychology experiment. In addition the questionnaire requests the parents to answer how the children were brought up which could give a certain insight to why the children have or don’t have ADHD, which means that this is a better way than B because that environment was exactly the same for every child.
In conclusion, although the data would not be as accurate study C would be the better study because it is not fair to make the participants endure such an unethical life, and B would still give helpful results and a great insight to the disorder, it would not be emotionally or psychologically scaring and it is far cheaper than study C.
If I were in the situation where I had to conduct one of these studies I would pick C.
Whilst B is an in depth experiment spread over the space of 9 years, the fact that it goes against nearly every ethical guideline means that the test would be rendered unacceptable, despite how accurate the data results collected could be.
Most would argue that study B would be effective as the details that are supplied are thorough, and would lead you to suspect that the aim of the investigation would be met. However there are aspects which aren’t mentioned; the effect of the link between ADHD and gender as it’s suspected that boys are more likely to get the condition compared to girls. Also another point yet to be considered is the fact that medication can be taken to reduce the symptoms of ADHD and if any of the foster parents were to take it this would have the potential to affect any results. I should mention that study C also doesn’t explore these topics though it’s not as important due to the fact that they’re only getting volunteers to fill out questionnaires. For studies where researchers are willing to separate twins and raise them in false environments surrounded by foster parents who have been lying to them it’s much more important that these factors are taken into consideration.
From another point of view the fact that study C only involves a questionnaire could lead people to think that the experiment isn’t thorough enough. Though the fact that it takes a less invasive approach, compared to B, makes it preferable.
In reality study B even states that after the children spend 9 years growing up being observed and surveyed by CCTV, they’re then given back to their biological parents without explanations or even counselling to rectify the distress that may be caused to the children and both parent couples emotionally involved. Though study C lacks detail its overall procedure is moral and ethical to the point in which they even offer support for family/educational life if an ADHD diagnosis is given.
In conclusion study C is the better of two evils and despite a lack of organisation would be more likely to achieve the aim without having to cause 20 young children and their family’s unnecessary emotional distress.
I believe that experiment C shows a more ethical and realistic approach to investigating the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
I think this because this experiment most agrees with the criteria which defines a successful and ethical psychological experiment. Part of this criteria includes; informed consent where the experiment was advertised and open for the public inviting them to participate if they wish to do so. This therefore gives the volunteers an option unlike in experiment B where a specific set of people were just gathered at a young age and separated from their real parents.
Another ethical guideline which was met in experiment C includes the protection of the participants as they were asked to participate and understood why the experiment was taking place. Furthermore the data gained from the participants was kept anonymous and their names were not mentioned in the research report. This factor was not even mentioned in experiment B and so this shows lack of care to the people being investigated and so well being is not considered, which is a huge part to consider when carrying out psychological experiments.
Another factor which was more carefully considered in experiment C than B was deception. Throughout all of experiment B the people taking part had no idea they were in the experiment and the children grew up believing two strangers were their parents! This shows a great deal of moral disrespect and goes against all ethical guidelines as choice was not considered. This automatically makes experiment C far more suitable and appropriate for a real life psychological experiment as there was no deception.
In conclusion, I believe that experiment C is a far more appropriate and ethical experiment to carry out to investigate the possibility that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a genetically inherited disorder.
In my opinion, Study B is the best study to carry out. This is because study C is harmless to the subjects and is purely optional. Study B on the other hand raises a lot of ethical and practical issues.
For example, would the subjects ever be able to live on two identical “Islands” where the conditions are exactly the same? I highly doubt it. Moreover, the subjects have no choice in the matter, and are separated from their real parents from birth until they reach their 9th birthday. This is extremely unethical and mistreats the children for a number of reasons. When they are 9, they are wrenched away from security again, this time back to their biological parents. By the age of 9, a strong connection would have formed with the non-biological parents and the subjects would certainly see them as their own parents. Moreover, other connections around the parents, including foster relatives and family friends would have been made, These also being severed adds to the negativity of this study. For this reason alone, it is extremely unethical for both of the parents (The Biological Parents miss out on a key stage of their own child’s development and the Foster Parents will have built up a strong connection with the child) and the child- to then be tossed into an unfamiliar family and environment would be extremely distressing, not to mention the inevitable, possible hurtful truth that the seemingly natural and familiar parents aren’t actually related to them, The fact they end up living with their Biological Parents by age 9 makes no difference as they have had no contact with the child. In the child’s eyes, they would resemble strangers.
Study B is also the weaker option in my view as there is a lot of deception- subjects are unknowingly filmed and tested, not knowing why they are being studied or even if there is a study going on. In contrast, Study C allows the participants to drop out at any time, fully informs them of the study and where their results will be used. Study B does none of these. Additionally, Study C does not identify the subjects formally, but simply refers to their results as a ‘Case Number’, meaning that confidentiality is maintained, unlike in Study B where full names and details are being shared.
To conclude, I think Study C is far more appropriate, allowing better treatment of the subjects. It isn’t unethical in any way, unlike Study B. Moreover, it (C) offers confidentiality and withdrawal from the investigation, ultimately providing security from the subjects. Dissimilarly, Study B doesn’t do this, in fact it does the complete opposite, providing no protection of participants. I don’t think the subjects will be very pleased to have been deceived, filmed and recorded unknowingly for the first 9 years of their life, without their identity being protected.
I think that study C is the best for investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children because it clearly told the volunteers on the poster, before they signed up, exactly what the experiment would be and how the researchers would be investigating their theories. Whereas in study B, the children were not told anything about the experiment and they were to be put in a different environment from society at birth.
Likewise, study C clearly shows that the subjects would be debriefed after the investigation so that they could understand what the researchers found out and it would be the subjects decision as to whether they wanted to know the results or not. However, in study B the parents could debrief the children after the investigation 9 years later, which is a lot of deception because the children were living with foster parents that they believed were their biological parents which could cause problems after the investigation.
However, both studies showed protection of participants because study B allowed the children to live in an area with education, food availability and playgrounds and the children would be fully cared for. Similarly, study C shows that the subjects were case numbers and never named so that their details and results were anonymous to everyone else.
Overall I think that study C is the best and most ethical for investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children because it allows them to withdraw from the investigation if they disagree with the questionnaire as it is optional for them and it also, most importantly, doesn’t deceive them at all as it tells them about the experiment at the beginning and allows the subjects to fully understand what they would be volunteering for.
I believe that experiment C is a more realistic way to meet the aim of the investigation. Experiment C is a more ethical in testing genetic inheritance of ADHD.
Experiment B is a more in depth investigation into genetic inheritance of ADHD, but it is also extremely unethical. Experiment B provides more information for the researchers, and may also prove other points such as ‘nature or nurture’. The controlled conditions within experiment B are also very good as this would make the experiment fair and justified and they also had the right of confidentiality. Experiment B would not be my choice because the unethical issues, the subjects did not give consent to the experiment, their parents did but this would still cause lots of distress to the subject as they do not know who their bological parents are and have believed the foster parents and other subjects are their own family. The subject had no idea they were apart of an experiment meaning they could not withdraw from the investigation. This would not happen during a normal civilian life,meaning there is no protection of participants.
Experiment C includes an informed consent as the parents will have to sign up for the investigation, it also includes protection of participants as anything taken part in would not cause harm to subjects and they are not exposed to any risks greater than that in a normal lifestyle. In experiment C there is no deception meaning that subject may answer the questionnaire differently to avoid demand characteristics and the research may not be valid.
I would choose experiment C as it is more ethical and meets the aim to the experiment. Experiment C also provides help for the familes it is experimenting on.
If I had to conduct one of the two experiments I would choose study C over study B, to conclude the hypothesis ‘that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder’.
I believe that Study C would be more appropriate as the experiment has considered the ethical guidelines that are important such as: the participants voluntarily complete the given questionnaire and are not obligated to hand in the data- as they could withdraw from the experiment at any time. After the data has been analysed the participants are offered support if needed.
Also study C requires the participants to be thoroughly debriefed so that they are not misinformed and are fully aware of the purpose of the study. The participants identity is confidential as their data is submitted as a case number rather that personal ID, which means they are more likely to be truthful when answering the questions. However some may manipulate the answers by mitigating the truth or even having to recall from memory- not an accurate method for data collection.
On the other hand Study B would collect the most reliable and accurate data to achieve its aim (due to not being able to manipulate the data under a controlled environment) yet the ethical guidelines have not been considered during this Study.
Although Study B does not state whether the genetic parents gave informed consent and were not deceived, so I can only assume that they gave consent on their children’s’ behalf. This does not make the experiment okay as the subjects did not give consent themselves- they were forced and deceived for 9 years, as well as not being made aware that they have rights to withdraw their participation in the experiment.
Other issues include having the twins separated at birth and sent away to live with foster parents, only for them to return to their genetic parents 9 years later. For a child of such a young age finding out about the experiment and for them to understand (if they were debriefed) could cause severe distress due to the sense of false security and adjustment issues, which could then lead to the child developing mental illnesses.
However the experiment does not breach the ethical guidelines of the ‘protection of participants’- as they were not exposed to a greater risk to those encountered in normal lifestyles, as well as ‘participant confidentiality’- the subjects and foster parents were given new identities for the experiment.
In conclusion if I had to conduct one of the two experiments I would choose study C over study B, this is due to the experiment taking the ethical guidelines into consideration which I believe are more important to reduce the psychological impact on the participants even though the results are not as accurate.
I think that experiment C is the best way to investigate whether ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is inherited or not because it is a more ethical and simple approach than experiment B.
Experiment C will easily catch attention of parents of children that are suffering with ADHD as the experiment is advertised in convenient places. The use of posters means that parents and children can get all the information on the experiment without needing to go to a representative. The use of questionnaires makes it easier as if it quick and easy for the parents to do but it can give them all the time they need to think over some questions. Also all personal information is kept private so the parents won’t need to worry about putting down information they do not want to. The outcome of the experiment will not harm anyone as the whole experiment is completely ethical, when over the parents get a diagnosis and are then helped through it which can only benefit then.
Experiment B, however, is clearly rather unethical, taking a new born baby away from its parents at a young age, having foster parents pretend to be their real parents and then at 9 years old telling them where they live and who they live with is all a lie can harm a child of that age and upset them dramatically. Although the parents give consent it is still unfair on them and the children, the children are being taught and brought up completely different to how their biological parents would do so, also after 9 years the children will obviously have become attached to their foster parents and may not be able to except that they have been living a lie. The outcome of this experiment is unethical and harmful.
In conclusion, experiment C is much better than experiment B as it is a very ethical investigation and cannot cause any harm to the participants, unlike experiment B which can be very unsettling for all the participants involved.
Out of the two experiments, B and C, I believe B is a better method of investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children. The experiment is set out very clearly and the variables within the experiment are more controlled than experiment C. In experiment C the sample for the investigation comes from volunteers so it is not a specific age group, like experiment B which uses the age group 20-30 and this could have an impact on the end results from the experiment. Experiment B controls the environment in which the sets of twins who are under examination which means they all will go through the same things in day to day life and won’t have any influences from anything else going on around the world. In experiment C the environment in which the twins would live will be different for each set of twins and this could affect their behavior and not give an accurate end result.
There is an obvious issue with the ethics side of experiment B. It could be worrying to some people about the mental effect on the child once it finds out they have not been living with their parents for 9 years but instead have been under observation. Some people may also say that it is not ethically right to film the children on hidden CCTV cameras and record their behavior but then, if they actually knew they were being watched all the time, they may act differently and not their true selves.
So, although there could be an ethical issue about experiment B to some people, at the end of the day the experiment will give accurate and clear results which have not been affected by anyone. I would hope that before the twins were taken at birth their parents gave permission for them to be used in the experiment. Experiment B will provide an accurate answer for the hypothesis set whereas although experiment C may too provide and answer for the hypothesis set, it may not be accurate because it has not been a controlled experiment.
I believe that Experiment C is the better of the two experiments in investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children as it has very clear aims and is comparatively much more ethical than Experiment B.
Experiment C meets all of the guidelines which outlines the criteria for an ethical psychological experiment. Experiment C gives Informed Consent as the study is published publicly, you may participate if you wish to but do not have to. This gives participants the option to drop out at any time, an option which is not provided with experiment B in which the babies are taken at birth for nine years with no mention of consent from the parents.
Another ethical guideline that is followed is Debrief. All participants of Experiment C are told what the research is being used for and are offered support if the tests bring back any results. This is a massive contrast with experiment B as the children that were forced to take part in the experiment are then given back to their biological parents at nine years old with no explanation as to what has actually happened to them. This would cause massive amounts of distress and possible psychological damage to the child as they have been fed lies their entire life and the people they trusted and believed to be their original parents were lying to them. They also must be introduced to siblings that they never knew existed and deal with the trauma of being separated from all the family and friends that they made during the nine years.
Deception is a key guideline in experiment C as everything is told to them at the very beginning of the study, nothing is hidden or misconstrued to mean something else. The purpose of the study, what it will involve and where the data will be used is mentioned clearly on the poster. Experiment B clearly states ‘At no point will the children be told about the experiment or that the foster parents are not there real parents’. This is Deception in every way as not only are they lying to the participants but distress caused by debriefing would automatically make the study unacceptable. This makes experiment C more acceptable as no stress is caused.
To conclude, I believe that experiment C is far more suitable to investigate the possibility that ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is a genetically inherited condition.
Arguably study C is far more ethical and it’s method of which the experiment is carried out are far more pleasing to the subjects/participants involved. However, although it is less ethically abiding, study B has far more depth and gives the scientists a deeper understanding of ADHD and it’s developments over a long period of time and in a more ‘actual’ manner.
To begin, not only does study B actually observe the subjects themselves, they do so over a 9 year period which allows time for careful scrutiny into the different factors and different situations that could alter the way in which ADHD is shown, perceived and experienced. Having the capability to try and determine as to the possibility of ADHD being genetically or environmentally impacted in the way of study B is far more truthful as they are actually exposing the subjects to the two separate lifestyles. The control used over the study is also very strong, nothing has been left untouched- both islands are identical, opportunities alike, subjects related; it could not be much fairer than already pronounced to be. In terms of trying to understand ADHD as a whole in as much depth as possible, this experiment surely tackles each aspect and would gain complex and detailed data, unmatchable by study C.
However, as with any good experiment it does have drawbacks. Firstly, the most prominent aspect that burdened my mind was that this experiment is studying subjects from a very young age who could have a mental abnormality. The vulnerability of the subjects therefore is extremely high, so for the protection of them to be so low is a huge worry. The mental impact and strain of living a life for 9 years, unaware it is not of the ‘norm’, only to be told after this upbringing that you must return to your ‘usual’ life you would have led could cause more problems then ever were intended or needed. It is rather inhumane to remove a child for the developing years of their lives semi-permenantly from their natural upbringing, only to try and return them once the experiment is finalised. From my perspective, perhaps this could be resolved by permanently removing the child, i.e. adoption, as to reduce the mental scaring an experience like this could have on the subject. That is the aspect of study C that study B is missing, the openness and understanding for the subjects. Then again, not having this leads to the results being more truthful as the subjects will act normally as they are oblivious they are being under a watchful eye for research purposes.
A perfect experiment does not exist. The ethics and scientific value will never correlate well, and therefore one must always be subsided to allow space for another. Study B could be altered to make it far more ethical, even if only finding ways to reduce the mental impact on vulnerable subjects. Overall, although the study lacks the ethical principles of study C, it’s scientific value and the depth of findings the experiment as a whole would bring is priceless in comparison.
I think that study C would be the best way of finding out weather ADHD is an inherited disorder. The main reason for this, is that it is a lot more ethical than study B. This is because firstly study C is a group of volunteers, i.e. people that personally put themselves up for the investigation. Study B however, is an NHS nationwide information search, meaning that a random sample of people are taken, some of those whom may not necessarily want to take part in the investigation. Study C would also explain the purpose of the study and what it will involve, so that people will get a clearer idea of what they may be putting themselves in for, whereas study B doesn’t mention any sort of explanation to people.
Study C also suggests throughout that if the parent is unhappy in any way about what is happening, then they can withdrawal immediately. This is not the case for study B, as it states that ‘at no point will the children be told about the experiment’. Study C will give ‘semi-structured’ questionnaires in the experiment, whereas study B seems as though it will have a very strict plan of what will happen in the experiment, and this will not be altered. In some ways, this could be an advantage for study B as it means that they will get very accurate results, but at the same time, it could cause upset to the people taking part.
In study B, the children will become completely isolated from their families, and will be raised by sets of foster parents. This may have a negative impact on the children’s lives, and may lead them to have less of a relationship with their actual Mum and Dad, after being brought up by foster parents. The fact that their are separated from their twins at birth also mean that when the are reunited they will never have met them before, and this may effect what happens between them in the long run. On the other hand, in study C the parents are a part of the experiment too, and therefore the children’s lives are not effected as much. Again, this could be seen as an advantage for study B, as the outcome may be that the results are more accurate, but some people may have the opinion that study B is so unethical, that it doesn’t actually justify getting the more precise results.
I believe study C is the more suitable method of investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children. Study B supplies more accurate information but is too unethical to put into practise. In psychology often science must be sacrificed over principles and these studies are evidence of such sacrifices.
Firstly, study C follows all the ethical guidelines needed in a psychological research. All subjects in the experiment are volunteers and give their consent after being informed what the investigation includes and are given the right to withdraw from the experiment at anytime. Meaning the subjects are not caused any distress as they are fully aware what is going to happen and have the freedom to leave the experiment at anytime. Study B however does give their subjects the same freedom. The children used in the investigation are selected from an NHS nationwide information search, so they have no control over being chosen to take part in the test. They are also not aware the experiment is underway and therefore can not withdraw from the research. The participants will also suffer psychological damage after the 9 year experiment due to the extreme deception taking place. Their lives as they know it will of been a false pretence. This is also shows that there is no protection of the participants in study B, the investigation will cause the subjects distress once they are debriefed at the end of the study. As by then the damage is done and the child’s life for the past 9 years will of been completely fictional. Study C can not cause the subject any distress as their lives do not change in anyway. They are merely observed by their parents and teachers for a certain amount of time and then explained the results at the end of the experiment. No deception takes place whatsoever. Lastly, study C respects the subjects confidentiality completely. The child is given a case study number and their real identity remains anonymous. Study B gives their subjects a pseudonym in an attempt to protect the child’s identity. But as the child is lead to believe their pseudonym is their real name they will always refer to themselves as this fictional name, so that will become their identity and they will no longer be anonymous.
On the other hand study B would produce very accurate and reliable results. The experiment tests multiple scenarios that could affect ADHD in children: ADHD in biological parents, but not adoptive parents and ADHD in adoptive parents, but not biological parents. Also due to the extreme conditions of the experiment it can be made sure that the children’s ADHD levels are not affected by their environment (apart from their adoptive parents) as they are all placed on two different islands with identical living conditions. This makes the results reliable. Experiment C however delivers less clear results making a less reliable study. The test also looks at the children’s environment and behaviour before testing their parents and siblings for ADHD. This in some ways can be good, the results could show what environment effects ADHD so it is clear when environment has caused ADHD and when genetics have caused it. But however there is a loophole to this. If a child had both, parents with ADHD and an environment that would typically cause ADHD it is impossible to tell which factor actually caused the ADHD. This being said study C would produce results in the end, just less reliable results than study B. But due to the unethical conditions in which the subjects would be tested in study B i must conclude that study C is the better option.
I believe that study C is the better study for finding out if ADHD is an inherited disorder. The main reason for this is because it still can provide results without causing distress to the people which study B does. Even though study B would provide better results as the study is so in depth but the psychological issue the subjects would face makes it too unethical to be allowed to be done so therefore not an acceptable study.
Study C allows people to chose to be on the study and makes them fully aware of what the study is looking for as well as the fact they can withdraw at any time. For study B the NHS nationwide search can have privacy issues as well as the fact that as the children are never told that they are part of a test they cannot withdraw. Also, in study B the children are given names even though these are fake it would be what the children have grown up with so would probably become their names. It doesn’t suggest that in study B the participants are given a debrief of at that point the allowance to withdraw from the investigation. Most of the experiment is based on deception in Study B as the children are not told that they are a twin or that their parents aren’t their biological parents. This creates a real issue and would probably affect the children for the rest of their lives. Study C has followed all ethical guidelines as the people are volunteers so therefore they give informed consent to be apart of the study. By the end of the study a debrief is given and also the opportunity to withdraw is given at any point including the end of the study. All participants are given numbers and not names as this protects their identity at any point they shouldn’t be under any distress as this isn’t part of the experiment. No deception is used as the lives of the participants are not affected in anyway and the people are told fully what is happening within the experiment.
However, study B would probably give more accurate results than study C. Just by asking a questionnaire this won’t give as accurate answer. Also, at this point the ADHD could have come from nature or nurture. This questionnaire would give you a wide range of information but this would then be hard to put into context to give you a definite answer. For study B however this study would give very conclusive answers. Every possibility of the giving the answer has been changed or not changed to get the end result as a very scientific answer. The fact the children are kept in identical environments with identical lives will be able to give prove to answer the question set put fully. So if ethics weren’t involved this would be the study that would have to be picked as the answers would be definitive and accurate.
In conclusion I have to pick study C as the best way to investigate if ADHD is a inherited disorder or nit. In psychology ethics must always be considered over science and with the lack of ethics involved in study B where the participants would suffer a lot of distress this cannot be a study to use. Study C isn’t as scientific but the participants are protected with no ethical guideline broken in the study. There study C is the better study.
I believe study C is a better method for investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children because it is a lot more ethical that study B. However the results achieved in study B could be useful scientifically as the experiment is over a longer period of time, is more in depth and avoids any demand characteristics. Yet study B is very unethical therefore the research is not as important as the ethical issues that arise and the problems it could cause to the subjects taking part.
Firstly, study C followed the ethical guidelines whereas study B did not, this could cause harm to the participants later in their life. The participants in study C were able to withdraw at any point in the investigation if they no longer want to carry on, however this was not possible in study C because they did not know they were taking part in an experiment. The subjects in study C were volunteers meaning they gave their informed consent however the participants in study B were picked from NHS patients meaning it was done at random. This does mean that a wider range of subjects could be used, meaning the research would be more useful. However this does not outweigh the ethical problems the study causes.
There is also no deception in study C, whereas study B is based of deceiving the participant for the first 9 years of their life to gain research on how they would normally act, to avoid any demand characteristics. Also this deception has a high chance of causing harm and distress to the participants, therefore this is unethical. Study C ensures the subjects are aware of what the study will involve as they are informed before they even volunteer to take part. Study B has no protection of participants as the subjects would have been harmed emotionally and mentally by taking part in the experiment once they find out the situation they have been living in and as the harm caused is much greater than in everyday life these children we put in a highly unethical situation.
Confidentiality of subjects was also maintained in study C as each case has a number instead of the names of the people taking part therefore no-one reading the research report would know who took part. Subjects were also debriefed and given support at the end of the experiment to help families with the diagnosis they were given, this also causes less harm to the participants taking part.
One of the major drawbacks to study B is that the experiment would cause major psychological harm to the subjects as who they believe to be their parents are actually foster parents, they have no idea they are a twin and they are then sent back to live with their biological parents after living their whole life a lie for 9 years. This could cause the subjects to have mental issues later in life as well as not feeling able to trust their biological families. Study C does not have any of these problems as the twins volunteered to take part and the way the information was attained caused no harm as they just answered a questionnaire.
Neither study is the perfect way to investigate whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. Study C does not gain as in depth information about ADHD however it follows all the ethical guidelines. On the other hand study B does not follow nearly all of the guidelines, but gains much more in depth information. Yet this is at the expense of the participants’ psychological well-being in the future. Therefore, to conclude I believe study C is the better experiment as study B is too unethical.
In my opinion, study C is the better experiment to investigate the possibility that ADHD is genetically inherited. This is mostly because it is much more ethical than study B, however still measures what it set out to in the aim of the investigation.
Firstly, In study B, during the investigation, the children involved do not know and are not told at any point that they are part of a study, or that the parents that are raising them on the island are not their biological parents until they reach age 9, at which point they are sent back to their biological parents. This means that the children involved do not give informed consent to participating in the study, and therefore cannot withdraw from the investigation at any time. Also, suddenly being told that their whole life was just part of a study at age 9 and being sent back to live with their real parents which they didn’t know about would be a massive shock for the children and cause a lot of emotional distress and psychological damage which could stay with them for a lifetime. Although study B does maintain confidentiality by giving pseudonyms for the subjects, the participants will believe these to be their real names and so will adopt that identity anyway, and also the study is very unethical overall. Unlike study B, study C is much more ethical, as the subjects give informed consent to participate in the study, as they volunteer knowing fully what the study is about, what it will involve and how the data collected will be used. The participants in study B also get the opportunity to withdraw from the investigation if they want to, and the participants are not subject to any deception like they are in study B. The confidentiality of the participants in study C is also better maintained, as each questionnaire is labelled with a case number rather than the name of the subjects.
On the other hand, the data collected from study B would probably be more accurate than the data received from study C. This is because study B measures the children’s behavior over a much longer time period, making the data more reliable. Also, the study collects data by having trained researchers observing the children’s behaviors through CCTV footage, which would be a more reliable and accurate way of collecting data than through a questionnaire, as with video footage researchers can make better decisions on whether the children have ADHD or not, because they can actually see how the children are behaving in the footage. The controlled variables in experiment B are also kept very well, increasing the reliability of the data. Each twin grows up in an identical environment on the islands, the only difference being whether their foster parents have ADHD or not. In study C, the controlled variables are not that specific; the twins can be identical or non identical and of any age. This makes the results less reliable. Also, the independent variable for study C is not made clear.
In conclusion, I believe that study C is better. Study B would have more accurate results, however it is just too unethical to actually carry out, follows no ethical guidelines, and would cause long lasting psychological harm to the participants involved. Study C is much more ethical, protects the welfare of the participants and will still provide good data to use.
I think study C is the best method to investigate the inheritance of ADHD in children. The reason for this being, study C follows many of the ethical guidelines used in psychological research. For example it is the parents choice whether they fill out the form or not, showing an informed consent. This study continues to follow the guideline and gives the parents the opportunity to pull out of the investigation at any time. Also as it is a study on a child’s previous behaviour, you could argue that the child will have not changed how they are to fit what they think the researcher is looking for as it is about what happened in the past.
Study B does not follow many of the ethical guidelines, one of the main ones being deception as the children have no idea that the life they’re living is a lie and has been set up for this experiment.
Overall I think the second experiment is better as it is more ethical and I think the laid back approach will encourage families to come forward with information about ADHD in their children, allowing researchers to see when it commonly occurs and what family history is related to it.
I choose study B over study C as although it does not comply with many ethical guidelines and could potentially cause distress to the subjects i think it is the most effective method of investigating if ADHD is genetically inherited. I am led to believe this because study B takes place over a very long time, 9 years, whereas study C is carried out over a very short amount of time meaning there is less room for observation. A part of study B that i think makes it particularly successful is that the subjects are deceived, this is very unethical however if the subjects arent aware of the study their behaviour will be genuine and give an accurate result. Unlike the subjects of study C who are aware of the study and may change their behaviour because of this.
I believe that experiment C is the better study for investigating ADHD in twins as experiment B has many more ethical issues. Firstly, the participants in study B were not given informed consent; fact they had no idea that they were taking part in an investigation. They were separated from their twin at birth, and there is no mention of the parents receiving a debrief or giving permission for their children to take part. Comparing this to experiment B, where the participants volunteer for the study and are given a full debrief, it is clear that B is the safer and more ethical option.
Secondly, deception was used a huge amount in experiment B, as the subjects spent the first nine years of their life in a false environment with no idea that their parents are actually foster parents. They did not know that they were being observed by hidden CCTV cameras, and everyone that they met was not aware of the purpose of the study. Even when the children were sent back to their birth parents, there is no mention of ever fully explaining the purpose of the study. There is, of course, a high risk of psychological harm to the subjects after the experiment is finished and they are sent home their parents who are complete strangers. In study C, however, no deception is used as the purpose and full nature of the study is explained to all participants. There is a much lower risk of harming the participants as the parents simply fill in a questionnaire to provide the data needed.
Thirdly, experiment C gave no option for the participants to withdraw from the investigation, as they had no idea that it was happening, The parents taking part in study C, however, could withdraw at any point without having to send back the questionnaire.
Therefore it is clear that study C is the preferable option in terms of ethics. That being said, it cannot reach the same depth and accuracy of information as study B could, as it is done over a much shorter space of time and is somewhat restricted by the ethical guidelines. Overall, neither study is perfect, but I would choose experiment C over B as it is much more ethical.
I believe that experiment C is the best study due to the fact that it not only gets the results that it sets out to get but also because it is less harmful to the participants.
The experiment allows for the aim to be met as at least one twin has ADHD and the parents and other twin is then asked as to whether they have ADHD which allows for the scientists to find out whether it is a genetically inherited disorder as if there are high levels of both parents and children with ADHD, then they would be able to tell that it is most likely genetically inherited. However experiment B is also a good experiment for this factor as it would show whether ADHD is genetically inherited or influenced by other people who do not share the same genes.
Ethically, experiment C is a lot better as the parents and children are able to give informed consent and they do. The poster explains the experiment and then the participants can decide whether they want to take part and they can even pull out after the questionnaires have been given out. Experiment B does not allow this as the children are entered into it just after birth when they can obviously not give consent. The participants are then not told until after the experiment is over leaving them clueless throughout the whole experiment. They are also led to believe that their foster parents are their biological parents and are then forced back to their biological parents once they turn 9 which would have a huge psychological affect on them due to their foster parents not being truthful to them among other things.
It is unknown whether the participants from experiment B are given a debrief however it is certain in experiment C that they are so this means that the participants in experiment C are able to see the results and are fully told what the experiment is about which is positive so now they fully know what they have given information for. The participants of this experiment are also offered support to help with any negative affects that the results may bring to life.
In experiment B the participants did not know they were in an experiment so to a certain degree the participants were protected however afterwards they were caused distress as they were then told that who they thought were their biological parents were only their foster parents and they were then taken away to live with their biological parents. Experiment C did protect the participants as their lifestyles were not changed in any way, they only had to answer a questionnaire and were also offered extra support if the participants felt they needed it.
There was no deception in experiment C as the whole experiment was outlined to all the parents via the posters put up, however in experiment B there was obvious deception as the children were tricked into thinking that their foster parents were their biological parents.
It is unknown whether experiment B maintains confidentiality but experiment C does due to the scientists changing the names to a case number so each identity is protected.
Overall it is clear that experiment C is the more ethical choice and should be used over experiment B due to the fact that B could cause a lot of emotional distress.
I believe that experiment C is the better study out of the 2, because it is quicker to complete and cheaper. Not only that but it is more ethical that experiment B because, there is no deception and the subjects have the right to withdrawal from the investigation.
Experiment B has no ethical side to it at all, the subjects have no choice but to be separated from their biological parents and they are deceived into believing that their foster parents are their real parents, which could possibly cause emotional distress and scarring for the subjects. It would also cause confusion if the subjects are at a young age. The subjects don’t get given the right to withdraw themselves from the investigation unlike the subjects in experiment C, which means that the experiment is forced.
Realistically, experiment B would be hard to complete because it would be hard to find parents with twins willing to give away their children for scientific studies over a period of time, where as experiment C is more ethical, confidential and they receive a debrief.
Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that experiment C would be the most successful and realistic study which doesn’t harm anyone and is ethical.
I think that experiment B would be more successful at achieving the aim to find whether ADHD is genetically inherited because the subjects aren’t informed that they will be taking part in an experiment so their behavior would be genuine. Also the participants are taken to the island at a very young age and are observed for 9 years. This means that you would be able to see how they develop differently over the years and can get more accurate results through this. However, experiment B has pretty much no ethical reasoning behind it as the subjects are deceived by not being told they’re part of an experiment and not told who their real parents are. When the experiment is over and the subjects are sent back to their real parents they could become very distressed and emotionally scarred. Also it would be extremely difficult to find parents who are willing to give away their children for so long with no contact allowed. As it is a 9 year long experiment it would take a lot of time, money and effort to finally get the results, even though the result would be very specific and reliable.
On the other hand, experiment C is completely ethical as participants aren’t informed what the questionnaires are about, given a debrief and given the option to withdraw. The questionnaires are also labelled with a case number instead of names so are completely confidential. As all the participants have to do is answer a questionnaire, it makes this experiment very quick and easy to gather results from. However, the disadvantage of it being a questionnaire is that participants could feel pressure to give bias answers. As there’s no observation involved you would have to rely on the participants to answer honestly so the results may not be accurate or reliable.
In my opinion, although experiment B would give much more accurate results, it simply isnt realistic to think that an experiment that long and unethical could be carried out, so therefore, experiment C is the better study.
Both experiment B and C set out the same aim, “to investigate the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder”. Whilst they both have the same intentions, the experiments themselves are conducted in entirely different ways.
Firstly, study C clearly outlines the aims and purpose of the trial. The experiment states that the poster will contain the purpose of the study, what it will involve and where the data will be used. This therefore gives the subjects the information they need and allows them to decide whether or not they want to take part in the study, before giving informed consent. On the other hand, study B states that the babies will be found using the ‘NHS nationwide information search’. From this it appears that they have to take part in the study and no consent is given. In this study, no information is said to be given before it starts and so the study goes against the idea of informed consent.
In addition, study C offers a ‘withdrawal’ from the study at any point. This means that subjects are not forced to do anything and do not feel pressured to continue with the trial if they do not wish too. This allows the subject to feel as if they are treated with respect and treated fairly. Alternatively study B does not give the subjects the option to withdraw from the trial. This could benefit the trial as it allows them to get very accurate data as they can be sure that the subjects are not showing any demand behaviour, however it seems that the participants are being forced into the trial. Some may argue that if the participants are unaware of the study there would be no need to withdraw. In my opinion I think that study B acts in an unethical and morally wrong way.
Lastly, in study B there is a great deal of deception. Although this would not change the results or affect the study or subjects any way during the trial, I think that it would cause a great deal of distress to the subjects after. The study states that the subjects would be returned to their biological parents at the age of 9. This is a crucial point in development and any stress could be very negative. Also the subjects wouldn’t be able to deal with the study in a mature way. Therefore the clear purpose of study C means that there is no deception and subjects are treated in an acceptable way.
Overall I think that study C is the best study as it follows the ethical guidelines and ensures that subjects are protected and cared for through out the study.
Both experiments set out to investigate the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. However, they each take a very different approach to the issue.
Experiment B deals with it in a very scientific, clinical manner with little regard for ethics. It requires children to be isolated from their parents at birth and raised in an artificial environment. This shares many similarities with various experiments involving mice and other animals, so it is a tried and tested method that will glean accurate results. Unfortunately, the costs of the experiment outweigh the benefits because, although the results will give a comprehensive answer, the experiment violates many human rights and is utterly immoral, so it is by far the worse of the two choices.
Experiment C approaches the issue by taking ethical factors into account. It ensures that the subjects of the study have a choice and are allowed to back out at any time. Also, it does not require any form of isolation or morally questionable activities. Rather, it only asks that a questionnaire is filled. There are some disadvantages to choosing this over Experiment B. B is guaranteed to give an answer because the subjects cannot choose to back out. In C, it is entirely possible for there to be no answer at all because anyone can choose not to fill in the questionnaire. Ultimately, Experiment C is the superior experiment because, despite a potential lack of results, it is entirely humane.
I believe that study C is the better of the two studies for investigating the possibility of ADHD being a genetically inherited disorder. The main reason behind my decision is that study C is considerably more ethical than study B.
Study B supplies accurate results and information due to the extent of the detailed environment and close monitoring. The environment that each of the children are put under are very specific and relevant to the experiment meaning that very clear results are seen at the end of the experiment.
But the fact that the experiment is highly unethical outweighs the possibility of this being the better study. Firstly, the participants are never able to give informed consent meaning that they were not able to agree to the experiment and find out about it until they reach 9 years of age. This then results in the lack of Protection of the participants because the children and the parents would be put under a lot of distress. For the children finding out that the last 9 years of their lives had been false would cause a great deal of mental distress. Parents could also experience distress after having their children taken away and not being able to see them for 9 years. As the children are picked through an NHS Nationwide Search, they would not have the choice of whether they were chosen for the experiment. Another negative result of the experiment would be that there would never be the option for the participants to withdraw from the investigation, which is another ethical guideline.
Study C, however, follows a much more ethically acceptable method. This is because before they even take part they are given all the information about the study with what it will involve and where the data will be used. This means that once they have volunteered they have given informed consent and so are completely aware of what they are doing. There is no deception in this experiment because of this. This study also follows the protection of participant guideline as the experiment consists of retrieving information from the past and so can no way affect the participant’s life and cause any harm or distress. Another positive point towards this study is that the participants are given the option to withdraw from the investigation at any point.
Although study C is far more ethical that study B, it still would not provide as valuable results as study B. The results from study C would not be very conclusive as it consists of asking questions that could easily be answered wrong and lead to an inconclusive result, whereas study B is specific so would provide accurate, precise results. But in psychological research human rights and ethics must be taken into account, so following this, study C is the only acceptable option for the investigation.
While both of the studies set out to achieve the same aims to ‘investigate the possibility that ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) is a genetically inherited disorder’; however both of the studies achieve their results differently ethically. I believe that because of these ethical reasons, study C is the better of the two studies.
Firstly, Study C approaches the experimentation by taking into account the mental well being of all of those involved and tries to cause as little emotional stress as possible, and even gives support to the family after the experiment has finished. All of those involved gave informed consent to the process of the study further extending the ethical point of view as there was no deceit involved. After being fully informed the participants could then back out at any point, giving them full control over what happens to them in the study allowing the subject to feel as though they are treated with respect. This furthers the aim to cause as little mental or physical harm to the subjects and those around them ensuring the ethical aim. At the end of the study all those involved are given a full debrief and are offered support if they require it ensuring the participants feel supported and protected by the study and also gives them protection and help after the experiment has finished thus ensuring the mental well-being of the subjects.
Study B does not inform the subjects that they are in a study and thus does not give the subjects any of the same protection. The subjects cannot give informed consent as at the beginning of the study they are children, however it is not clear whether their parents gave informed consent on their behalf which would in some ways make the study more ethical. There is also large amounts of deceit involved, the children are not told that they are in a study, or that the people raising them are not their real parents, or that they have a twin they do not know about, or that they are being monitored through CCTV. While some of this could be considered necessary to the accuracy of the results others just show the lack of care for the subjects and care for the mental harm that the study could be inflicting. It is also not clear whether the children are given a debrief which would also add to the mental and emotional harm both at the end of the study and throughout the rest of their lives.
Secondly, Study C is a much easier way to determine whether ADHD is genetically inherited as the study takes much less time than the time period suggested in Study B. The whole process appears to be relatively quick and simple therefore it would be implied that the study takes much less time and could then repeat the study many more times to get more accurate results. Also; because the study would cost less than B it could be repeated more frequently and nationwide to provide a clearer idea of whether the disorder is genetic or not thus helping the study meet its aims more effectively.
As Study B involves the creation of islands and everything on the islands as well as CCTV monitoring for the duration of the study and trained professionals to monitor this for the nine years of the study it is incredibly expensive and time consuming which would limit the amount of times that the survey could be performed which would limit the accuracy and diversity of the participants thus becoming a hindrance to the study.
Lastly, Study C offers much more protection of the participants by keeping them in their home environments and not exposing them to any new risks or dangers and giving each of the test subjects a case number rather than a name, which not only makes the study more ethical but ensures that there is no bias towards any of the subjects which keeps the whole study fair and equal to all the subjects. It could also be argued that this would encourage more participants in the study which would, again, help the study achieve its aims better as more subjects would feel encouraged to take place therefore furthering the number and diversity of results.
Study B does not offer any protection of participants nor does it make any of the information protected thus leaving the subjects very exposed and could cause lasting damage to them mentally all of this could lead not many people wanting to take place in the study due to the lack of ethical care. This could limit the number of results that the study provides, thus negatively affecting the accuracy of the study which stops the study from reaching the full potential of its aim.
However, Study B approaches the study with very little ethical consideration and primarily focuses on the results rather than the protection of the subjects. As a result of this, the results given from the study give a much more accurate idea of whether ADHD is an inherited disorder or whether it can be affected by the environment that they are raised in, for example the parents they are raised with rather than their biological parents. Also; because the conditions of the study are so drastic they leave little room for error as those involved in creating the study have full control over the subject’s lives and thus can see all of the subject’s interactions and their reactions to this. Ensuring that the subjects are monitored at all times through CCTV, which is monitored by trained doctors and professionals in ADHD provides much more accurate data than that collected through a questionnaire. As the subjects do not know they are being monitored they do not change their behaviour giving the study more accurate results. Likewise, because the subjects have no idea that they are in a study, let alone the aim of the study, they do not change their behaviour like they could have done in Study C which provides much clearer and accurate results thus making some of the deception acceptable.
In conclusion, while Study B has the possibility to give more accurate and detailed results the costs by far outweigh the benefits of the experiment making it incredibly immoral and unethical to perform. This makes Study C the preferable experiment as, although the results are less accurate, the experiment itself is much more humane and ethical.
In my opinion, I believe that C is the most ethical and suitable option out of the two studies that I have had to choose from. I believe that Study C is the best because of its realistic approach unlike Study B – it is very unlikely that a set of ten biological parents would give up their children for an experiment and then gain them back nine years later; usually once the parents give up a child it would only be for adoption mostly due to some sort of impact on their backgrounds that may affect the child’s upbringing. In addition to my opinion against Study B, once the child is nine years old they’ll still believe that the foster parents are their real ones, and may be emotionally stressed or broken once they have had to leave their foster parents that have brought them up well to reality.
On the other hand, Study B does have some aspects which are better in comparison to Study C. Study B would give more accurate results towards a child’s development and whether they have ADHD which would have an impact on their lives. The results after nine years would give psychologists a deeper understanding about its aim of concluding whether ADHD is genetically inherited or not. Although the children on Island A and B would have the same climate, education, quality of life, etc, and as realistic their environment sounds like, it is still artificial. This can be seen as going against human rights and it may be morally wrong, since the children are too young to understand their surroundings. Another impact on the child after the experiment is that when they get older they may see themselves as being used by psychologists, which could potentially have a greater impact on their social factors, especially the way they treat people in the “real world”; they may turn against their parents for giving them up for an experiment. Study B also shows that controlled variables have been maintained, such as education, entertainment, food, etc. unlike Study C which shows none that are significant. Finally, the only protection that the children got was their details such as their full name and confidentiality was maintained
.
Study C proves itself to be a lot more ethical and acceptable for a diagnosed child’s upbringing. Study C involves the word “volunteers” unlike Study B, indicating that the parent and their child are willingly putting themselves up for the experiment whilst only the parent could decide what happens to their child in Study B. Study C meets more requirements for the ethical guideline within psychology; it gives a debrief by showing it on the advertising poster in hospitals. Parents and their children also have the ability to drop out easily by not sending in the questionnaire so that they can be withdrawn from the experiment. Study C emphasises their aims and what they want, which can influence the participants’ decisions.
So personally, Study C would be the most moral, because you would still be able to gather enough research to understand the development of a child with ADHD
When looking at the pair of experiments it is immediately apparent that they are on substantially opposite ends of the spectrum ethically speaking, with experiment C being ethically sound and experiment B being very unethical and immoral. As these are such contradictory experiments a downfall of one investigation could be an advantage for the other vice versa; this makes it hard to decipher which is the best experiment when testing ‘the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder’.
The experiment that surpasses the other on reliability of results is Investigation B; probably the most substantial reason is because the experiment relies on the deception of the subjects as they are unaware that they are participating in an experiment, this makes it a more reliable experiment as the subjects cannot knowingly tamper with and compromise the results. Experiment C on the other hand does not include deception which is good if looking for an ethical experiment, however in terms of results it is probably not the most dependable option as the experiment is done over a questionnaire where subjects can consciously interfere by providing false information. Another reason why B’s results would have been superior to that of C’s is because B’s was done over a longer period of time (9 years), this would have allowed more data to be gathered, ultimately leading to a lot of data to choose from and more reliable results. Experiment C’s data collection is a lot more limited than B’s as it is only done over a questionnaire which also backs up that B would be more reliable when comparing results.
With regards to how ethical these experiments are it is visible that C is the better option because it complies with all the ethical guidelines, unlike B which follows next to none of them. Informed consent is a major element that experiment C has and B does not. Informed consent means that the subjects have signified that they are happy to participate in the questionnaire; in this case just by taking the questionnaire means that they have given consent because they will already know what the experiment consists of. On the other hand you have experiment B which shows no mention of any form of informed consent even though the experiment involves the subjects being taken away from their parents for 9 years. Experiment C also allows the participants the chance to withdrawal of the experiment, so if they fill in the questionnaire and decide they want to opt out than they just don’t post of their answers. However this option is not available for experiment B. Experiment B unlike C does not provide protection as they are not being physically harmed however if the children in the experiment were to find out about the means of the investigation then they could be effected mentally, but C does not cause more distress than would be found in normal day to day life.
If I was to just base my verdict on the reliability and accuracy of the results I would have to go with investigation B. However as this task’s purpose demonstrates, in psychology the science is sometimes sacrificed over ethics and human welfare, so in actual fact I am going to have to go with Investigation C because not only is it leaps and bounds more ethical but also a lot more of a realistic experiment than B.
Study C, in my opinion is the most suitable investigation for examining the possibility that ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder. The fundamental reason for this is that it is considerably more ethical than Study B and therefore could be put to use in the real world. For example all participants receive an objective brief so that they are fully aware of the aims of the research and no deception is involved. Study C also considers the protection of participants as the children with ADHD are not directly involved in the study which means they would not be caused any emotional distress. This study also offers the option of withdrawal throughout the study which prevents the participant feeling under pressure.
In contrast, Study B offers a complete disregard for ethical issues and focuses solely on producing valid, statistical results. This is done by creating extreme conditions in which all factors possible that could potentially contribute to the development of ADHD are eliminated.
Realistically, however, the experiment could not be performed in real life as the moral issues are too drastic. For example participants may be subject to emotional trauma when informed that their life had been an experiment and are returned home to live with their biological parents at the age of nine. Another ethical flaw in the experiment is that it violates medical confidentiality as the children and parents are chosen through an NHS nationwide information search. This also means it is not necessary for parents to give their consent for their children to participate in the study which would cause a large amount of emotional distress for the parents as they are unable to see their children for nine years. Another moral issue is that the children’s behaviour is monitored via CCTV. Although this lets researchers record valuable data which may be conducive with an ADHD diagnosis, it is an invasion of the children’s privacy.
Study B also violates the children’s human rights which state no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
There are also practical dilemmas with Study B such as locating suitable islands for the experiment to take place and receiving funding for the project. Another issue could be parents wanting to see their children which could lead to various outcomes. For example the experiment could end prematurely due to parents arriving unexpectedly on the island and violating the conditions needed for the experiment. This would mean the researchers would not be able to collect all the necessary results and the study would be invalidated.
Study B does have some advantages over Study C. For example the children have been isolated from their families which means that the results would be more objective compared to the results in Study C which have been provided by the parents. This is because it allows researchers to view children independently rather than compared to their families. Another advantage of Study C is that the children are monitored by a small group of scientists who are all focusing on certain characteristics which are based on a pre-agreed list. In Study C, however, parents who answer the questionnaire are a wider range of people who focus on different characteristics of their children. This means that they will respond to the questionnaire in different ways therefore decreasing the accuracy of the results.
In summary Study C is the superior study as it offers a compromise of validity and morality. For example the parents’ perception of their children’s behaviour may not be as reliable as trained researchers monitoring the children constantly through CCTV but it is a far more ethical method.
Although both studies both have their benefits, as both (as unethical or not) are both ways to successfully achieve the answer that is being looked after of whether ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder or not. However from evidence given on both studies C is by far the best case to opt for. This is due to features such its Informed consent, Debrief< Protection of participants, deception, confidentiality and lastly Withdrawal from the investigation if needs be.
Study C compared to study B is voluntary, meaning the only participants in the case would be ones willing to do it. Compared to study B where participants would be given no choice, which is ethically not correct as everyone should have a right of choice in what themselves are putting themselves forward to. This is also linked to the ability to withdrawal from the investigation if the participants wanted to, as a choice was given to the people taking part in the case study from the start to even after the questionnaire had been filled out.
Lastly the protection and confidentiality of the study of C compared to B is huge. Study C states that instead of names, numbers are given to each person taking the questionnaire. However in B this is not the case. This number method protects the identity of the person.
Case study B aims solely to receive the data wanted without caring about moral or ethical issues that are carried along with the investigation. For example the idea of deceiving the children from an early age and allowing them to grown up not know who their real biological parents are is ludicrously unethical , as well most likely illegal without the permission of the parents (which has not been given and the idea behind the study has been forced upon them). In addition to this the separation of the twins does not follow moral bylines as it isolates the child on their own and creates a huge gap between them and their family. Especially at this age where parents and siblings are a key part to the development of a child separating them is simply unacceptable.
From this, the obvious choice of study would have to be investigation C. Not only because of all the key features that must be in place to carry out a moral and ethical investigation and meet the guidelines needed, but because of the practicality of the study. As from what is stated it is a simple questionnaire that would take a couple of minutes and then for all the possible diagnostics maybe a few days. But everything would be done in a neat amount of time. Whereas study B would take 9 years which would almost make the investigation not worth it for that 9 years the participant could of been diagnosed and started being treated long ago. And for that reason, investigation C has to be the choice to be possibly carried forward.
I chose experiment B over C for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would give a more accurate answer as the children’s lives are being controlled. All the conditions would be the same so there would be no anomalies. Even though this is unethical, it would be the only way to know for sure if ADHD is a genetically inherited disorder.
Also, the children are away from their parents. This is helpful to the experiment because the parents actions doesn’t manipulate the childrens way of thinking or acting. You will know from that if ADHD was passed down or just developed.
Lastly, this experiment is more precise. It gives you the exact sample size they need, the controls and how long the experiment will last for. Experiment C doesn’t say how many questionnaires will be handed out and how many questions.
In conclusion, I prefer experiment B over C because it would give a better answer to see if ADHD is passed down througg genetics or not. Even though it isn’t ethical because you’re not telling the children anything, they wil get to go home at 9. The longer it is carried out, the better the results will be. Experiment C will give you a vague answer because parents don’t remember when their children change their behaviour as the answer would be ‘about 2 years old’. Experiment B will give you the exact year.
Both experiments B and C set out to study the inheritance of ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and are both (however unethical) successful at testing for it and use very different methods in their study. Both however are flawed, so out of the two study’s to opt for experiment C is the best option to test ADHD inheritance in children.
One reason for this is that experiment B is horribly immoral towards its subjects as it involves traumatizing the subjects at a young age by separating siblings at birth with no apparent briefing prior to the start of the experiment and does not allow the participants to withdraw from the study until it is concluded which is a period of 9 years (Which goes against the moral guidelines we have to follow). These breaches of moral guidelines show that this study is solely to receive and record data much like a general science experiment which is not concerned with morals and ethics as it is mostly performed on substances.
Whereas alternatively experiment C is allot more morally aware and has tailored this study to allow the participants to be fully protected some of the ways it manages this is by giving a full brief telling the participants about the study in the form of a poster, it also gives them a debrief after the results have been collected if it is needed. There is also a window of time to withdraw from the experiment if the participants wanted to and all the data was kept anonymous.
Therefore we can see that experiment C is the better of the two because it still gets results and doe not violate and moral or ethical guidelines.
I have chosen experiment B over experiment C due to the fact that it it will give a more reliable and greater sample to find out if ADHD is genetically inherited.
Experiment B is conducted over a longer period of time (9 years) this creates a a greater sample of work and can see the ADHD developing over time and the different behaviours promoting it form either the other children or the parents. By the time scale of the experiment it makes the results a lot more reliable. As well as this by the fact there is deception involved of the children not knowing the study as well as the adults it to creates more reliable results as their behaviour will not manipulate and be changed due to the fact that they know people are watching them. With the use of the identical islands it rules out the fact that the environment could change the behaviours of the children resulting in them developing ADHD. It also helps the adults and children lead their lives as normal as possible within the 5 years of the experiment.
However experiment B has a lot of ethical issues. These issues could cause mental problems and illness’ in the forthcoming future to the children involved in the study. These problems will occur due the fact that they have been lied to and manipulated about their parents, this could result in them having problems of trust and not knowing who they actually are.
The reasons why I didn’t choose experiment C is that the results will not be as reliable.
The use of the questionnaires will not work as they can be manipulated and the information could be wrong or incorrect or even that they haven’t given you enough information about themselves or the children – this then creates unreliable results. Some of the information needed such as when did the twins display similar behaviours may be hard to remember an exact time of when this occurred or stopped.
A positive about experiment C is that the ethical guidelines are correct and they follow rules of; informed consent, debrief, protection, deception, confidentially and withdrawal from the investigation. These guidelines are needed to stop the occurrence of distress later on in life and to also have the smallest about of mental and physical harm to the participants – experiment C does this.
Overall I opt for experiment B as it will give a more reliable and definite answer compared to the results of experiment C
Although experiment B may get the most accurate results as it allows a more in-depth, thorough investigation into whether ADHD is inherited, experiment C is a better overall experiment as it is a lot more ethical to all those involved. The participants are all volunteers who give their informed consent to be involved with the study based on the information given to them by the posters and other advertising which detail the purpose of the study, what it will involve and what the data will be used for.
All the participants are also given the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, as they don’t have to send in their questionnaire, which is fairer and more ethical than B, where participants are stuck on an island and don’t fully understand what they’re involved in. The children in C are never required to do anything which is inappropriate as they are too young to even understand what they are doing and what the purpose is, so are very unlikely to experience any stress. Their lives remain completely unaffected, compared to B, where the separation from their parents could cause the children distress and long term emotional damage.
Overall, including the debrief and support participants get at the end of the experiment, C is a much fairer and more ethical experiment, causing no harm whatsoever to anyone whilst allowing relevant and helpful information to be collected. It is a compromise, but an important one.
I think that, even though it was the most unethical, experiment B would be best to show accurate results on ADHD being inherited or not. This is because the twins would be separated around different people and so the environment could not be a contributing factor. However splitting up the twins for scientific purposes is immoral as after the experiment is done they are expected to live with people they don’t know (their biological parents). It is also better than experiment C because the time frame is longer and so you can see if the behaviour changes or develops as the child matures in an environment where they do not know they are part of a study. Not knowing they are part of a study is unethical and immoral even though it would provide results where the behaviour was natural and not an act.
Overall experiment B is the best method on investigating whether ADHD is inherited because it allows for natural behaviour over a longer duration ( 9 years) even though it is based on deceit.
If we are speaking purely about the quality of the results we receive, then study B is easily the best path to go with, purely because you are a witness to 9 years of psychological development, and the results you could get from that are astronomically superior to a short witness account (the questionnaire), however the moral dilemmas surrounding study B are not forgotten and they do bring a great deal of controversy in regards of human rights and such, with issues such as a lack of consent, deceit and robbing of a normal childhood, however the results we get from a morally unethical study would be better than an ethical one.
Study C is undoubtedly a more morally sound experiment and ticks all the boxes that follow our ethical guideline, plus study C is not entirely worthless and offers quick and simple insights into a child’s experience with ADHD, however they may not be enough to come to proper conclusions as to investigating the effects of inherited ADHD, as the answers we get may not provide enough insight into the child’s psyche. Whereas study B shows a natural progression that we can get much greater knowledge from.
Overall I would recommend study C as study B is simply too unethical to be worth the results we receive from it, and study C still manages to give us a great deal of knowledge from a wide variety of sources, meaning that we can pinpoint consistent deficiency’s when it comes to ADHD, and come to conclusions on that.
Although, both study B and C raise various issues, I believe study C is the better of the two as I consider it to be the most ethical. The reason being, that study B involves a lot of disruption to the children’s lives as after nine years of living with one family, they are then suddenly returned to their real family, this therefore could be psychologically harmful. Whereas study C only requires all of its participants to answer a questionnaire, which is very unlikely to cause any harm.
However, the use of a questionnaire in study C, as oppose to a long term observational study like in study B, does also raise validity issues. As, despite the fact that semi-structured questionnaires do allow lots of detail to be obtained, they can also be affected by interviewer bias and the answers given may simply not be truthful. On the other hand, a nine year observation isn’t affected by this, as it continues to study the participant’s natural behaviour. Furthermore, the fact that the children were used from birth does allow the experimenters to control external validity.
Although finally, study C does give the participants a right to withdraw and they enter the study with full knowledge of what it includes and what it is for, unlike study B which states “All adults…will be unaware of the purpose of the study”.
Out of experiments B and C, I believe that although experiment B is most likely to gain the most reliable results through being a long term experiment and actually observing the subjects in a controlled environment making sure their environments are identical, it is extremely unethical. It completely abuses the privacy of the subjects and when returned to their biological parents at 9 years old could cause them a lot of emotional stress and upset. This very likely potentially compromises the mental health of the subjects once it is known to them that the first 9 years of their life has been an experiment, therefore making the experiment, in my opinion, ethically wrong.
It is for this reason that I choose experiment C. Experiment C only uses questionnaires, making it most likely less reliable, however it is done with complete informed consent and doesn’t violate the privacy of any of the subjects, as well as offering support once the results are concluded and shown to the subjects. The subjects also have the ability to withdraw from the experiment at any stage, unlike the subjects of experiment B who are not even conscious that they are in an experiment. This makes the experiment entirely ethical and should not cause any psychological stress to the subjects or anyone involved in the questionnaire.
In my opinion, although study B would most likely produce the most reliable and consistent results, due to the fact that all variables are the same and therefore the outcomes can only be associated with whether or not ADHD is a genetic condition, it is the most unethical investigation of the two and consequently, study C would be the most appropriate to carry out.
As participants will know exactly what they are involved in and are highly unlikely to be caused any psychological stress or distress because of the investigation, the results are likely to be less controversial. Whereas study B would more than likely create the subjects to become distressed after they find that they have been living a false life and cause controversy to occur, possibly leading to the investigation being ruled off by a higher authority and a waste of 9 years. This could cause serious psychological distress to a subject and is therefore such an unethical experiment that it would not be acceptable to carry out. On the other hand, study C can be carried out at a much faster rate and can produce very similar results. Although a few problems could arise, such as the fact that participants could be biased and lie in a questionnaire, this is not a large problem as these answers could easily be seen as anomalies and be immediately ruled out and if the participants are affected in a negative way by the questions asked, they have the ability to withdraw from the study, meaning that it is a fair and 100% ethical study for everyone involved.
In conclusion, study C would be the most effective investigation to carry out as it will produce reliable results quickly, is ethical and will therefore not cause any controversy or negative backlash to occur at any point.
Whilst both methods have there merits, for example experiment B would give more reliable data and experiment C would have realistic results both also have downfalls.
Experiment B could potentially be psychologically harming when the children find out everything they know about there way of life isn’t true. Although some of the children would be able to cope well it is likely for others to have huge mental problems and be unable to settle into life when they go back. The experiment is also very unethical as there is huge deception, little ability to withdraw, they are uninformed and taken away from all there family even though they would be unaware to that.
Experiment C only real fault is that the results may not be 100% accurate other than that the experiment is good and ethical. Therefore I would choose experiment C especially as they receive support after the experiment has ended and it goes along with the guidelines.
Both studies B and C investigate the inheritance of ADHD in children but use very different approaches to find their results. Although study B is more likely to produce more scientific and accurate results, study C explains everything that will be happening in the experiment and there is never any deception. Study B puts children into an environment that is not seen as normal. There is lots of deception as whilst being brought up on the island, the children are thought to believe their foster parents are their biological parents and after 9 years, are told they have been living in an experiment. The ethical issues lead me to believe study C is a better experiment all round, as the children’s environment will be normal, and they wouldn’t be brought up by any lies. In study C, the experiment is over in a much shorter amount of time, but could produce less reliable results as it is the parents that are filling out the questionnaires. This means that if the parent wanted their child to be free of ADHD, they may lie in the questionnaire in order to be given the results they would have liked to have. Study B gives more realistic results as it shows if a parent with or without ADHD can change how a child behaves and their behaviour is monitored, rather than making a judgement from a questionnaire, where you don’t really know the child. However it was 9 years long with no chance to withdraw from the investigation and no informed consent. Due to the unethical issues of study B, study C seems to be a more reasonable experiment as everything is explained before the experiment takes place and although it won’t be as realistic, it won’t give a risk of psychological and mental affects on the children when they find out the levels of deception they have been put through by study B. Therefore, in my opinion, study C is the better choice.
Both studies B and C are effective in investigating the inheritance of ADHD in children. I believe that experiment B would be the most efficient study as it is a long term experiment which is able to fully assess the nurture of all of the children, from nine years’ worth of evidence, as well as their nature. However, study B is, unfortunately, completely unethical as the children would be brought up, unaware that they had a twin, that their foster parents aren’t their real parents and that they have been part of a scientific experiment for nine years of their life. This would cause a lot of stress for the children and could possibly cause long term psychological and trust issues. This investigation also completely ignores the ethical guidelines for psychological research.
Therefore, I believe that the best study is experiment C. Although this study may not be as trustworthy as we have no evidence of the children’s behaviour, it is completely ethical, and it makes sure it follows all the ethical guidelines.
I think that study C is a more effective and less traumatic for the subjects. Although both studies do give an answer to the investigation. Study B takes a long period of time to find out the final diagnosis so you wouldn’t get as much information as quickly as study C.
Study C is less traumatic because it only consists of the semi structured questionnaire rather than taking up 9 years of a child’s life and separating them from their biological parents. The subjects have complete power if they wish to withdraw their input they are allowed to and the data will not be used in the investigation. And each questionnaire is labelled with a case number rather than a name so it is very confidential for the subjects. Also in study C the parents of the twins are informed of the results and offered sufficient support if they want or need it.
The subjects of study B have volunteered their input and this study could damage the child’s future as they are being separated from their biological families. Whist study C has asked for volunteers by advertising i local hospitals and they are explained what the purpose of the study is and what it will involve, rather than not knowing their role in the study or knowing of the study at all- like the subjects in study B.
Consequently, i think that study C is the best study as the subjects are in the know about the whole investigation and that they are offered support if necessary.