Psychology from a Christian Perspective
A Christian Perspective
God
Nature
Humans
Psychology from a Christian Perspective
Definition
Goals
Systems
Methods
Descriptive Methods
Naturalistic Observation
Survey
Correlation
-Experimental Methods
An Ancient Experiment
Variables
Conditions
Designs
Ethical Questions
Experiment on People?
Experiment on Animals?
Deceive Participants?
Experiment on God?
Conclusion
Parts Three and Four of Chapter 1 in Dewey’s introductory text are relevant.
(Chapter 1: Thinking Critically with Psychological Science in Myers 8th edition is also relevant)
As mentioned in the Prologue, psychology today is the science of behavior and mental processes. Psychologists study what people do and what they experience subjectively. Behavior may be anything from as complex as driving a car to as “simple” as a change in blood pressure. Mental processes may be anything from solving a calculus problem to as “simple” as deciding what to order at a restaurant. Mental processes include not only what people think, but also what people perceive, feel, and what they want. Of course, psychologists also study the behavior of other organisms, but most missionaries are primarily interested in human beings.
Also as mentioned in the Prologue, any field of study begins with a set of assumptions. The major systems of psychology began with the assumptions held by their founders. Missionaries also have assumptions which come with their Christian world-views, so we first need to be clear on a Christian perspective.
A Christian Perspective
At this point, a particular Christian perspective is used as a framework to organize a Christian psychology. Christians also make assumptions about the nature of human beings, and we should be aware of the assumptions we make.
God
First, we assume that God exists and is the source of all else in existence. He is independent of nature. There is nothing to limit his sovereignty. He is both infinite and personal. He has revealed himself to us in several ways. Of course, we first think of his special revelation as recorded in the Bible. In this revelation, God spoke through individuals who recorded what he said, as well as the history of the nation of Israel, the life of Christ, and the history of the early church. Al1 Christians emphasize this revelation, but we must not forget that this special revelation tells us that a general (natural) revelation also exists. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 give the strongest statements about this natural revelation. The Romans passage explicitly states that God has revealed enough of himself in his creation to make his eternal power and divinity evident, and even people who have not heard God's special revelation are without excuse.
Nature
The universe is the creation of God. He created it and sustains it. Although God is immanent in the world, it is neither identical with him nor a part of his being. He also transcends the world. Since God's creation was made by a rational being, it is real, it was created good, and it is orderly. Furthermore, since humans are made in God's image, they can discover these patterns and regularities by examining the world. Some of the best methods we have for learning about God's creation are the scientific methods used by psychology and other sciences.
Humans
The last part of Genesis 1 tells us that humans are created in God's image. That is, we are created beings like animals, plants, and inorganic creation. However, we are special in that we are made in God's image. Humans are a composite unity of spirit and matter. We must remember that we are a unity, but that we may look at ourselves from different vantage points, sometimes emphasizing how we are like the rest of creation and at other times emphasizing how we are like God. This is diagrammed schematically in Figure 1:2. This figure will serve as a basis for the rest of the book. As each new topic in psychology is introduced, it will be placed in this perspective so that you will have a unified reinterpretation of secular psychology from a Christian perspective. We must recognize that there are some implications of saying that humans are like animals in some ways and like God in others.
Humans Like Animals. A little reflection will lead to the conclusion that humans are more like animals than they are like anything else in creation. They are more like animals than like plants or inorganic creation. As created beings we are finite creatures, like animals. We are similar to animals anatomically and physiologically. We are also similar to them in some of our behaviors.
Figure 1:2 A Christian perspective into which psychology can be placed.
HUMANS
Created . . . . . . . . . . . in the. . . . . . . image of God
Like Animals Like God
Some passages of Scripture refer to the fact that humans are like animals in some ways. Psalm 49 points out that humans must die like any animal. Ecclesiastes 3 notes that humans are similar to animals; both breathe the same air, both die, both are made of the dust of the earth, and both must return to it.
Like the rest of creation, humans depend upon God for everything, even their continued existence.
That humans are like animals in some ways has implications for missionaries. Some techniques for helping humans were originally developed through research on animals and were then directly applied to helping humans. It is important for missionaries to use all methods available to help people to whom they minister.
Before leaving the topic of the similarity of humans and animals, it should be noted that saying similarities exist does not mean that humans are merely animals. Even scientists who spend most of their time studying the similarities between animals and humans come to recognize the differences as well.
Humans Like God. God created humans male and female in his own image. Some theologians maintain that the fall of humanity into sin has shattered that mirror, but others interpret Scripture to indicate that the image remains. When God prohibited murder, he said that to kill a human being is to kill one made like himself-and that was after the Fall (Genesis 9). In New Testament times, the apostle Paul wrote how we can be mirrors that reflect God's glory and that we become more like him as his Spirit works in us (2 Corinthians 3:18) . James, likewise, noted that we use the tongue to bless our Father, God, and we use the same tongue to curse our fellow human beings who are all created in God's likeness (James 3:9, 10).
Although some Christians speak more of how evil people are, Christianity declares both how evil and how lofty humans are and can become. Psalm 139 speaks not only of Jehovah's glory, but of humans' being wonderfully made. Psalm 8 talks about the majesty of God and goes on to say that he made humans only a little lower than God himself. Humans are crowned with glory and honor and given dominion over God's creation; over mammals, birds, and fish. God saw humans as being important enough to send his Son to die for them.
That humans are like God in some ways has implications for cross-cultural workers. Such workers must remember that they are not just working with machine-like objects or animal-like organisms, but with beings who have capacity for love, mercy, and other God-like attributes. Of course, all this does not mean to imply that there are no differences between humans and God. God is sovereign, omniscient, infinite, omnipotent, and so forth. Humans can never have these attributes of God, but they are commanded to be like him in some ways.
Humans Unique. Finally, we must remember that humans are unique, different from both God and animals. God gave humans the capacity to make choices for which they would be held responsible. Humans chose to disobey God, and this sin then came between God and humans. We are thus in a fallen state.
That humans are affected by sin also has implications for missionaries. They must not ignore sin and its effects in the lives of people they help. However, they must be careful not to make sinfulness the distinguishing characteristic of humanness. Before the fall into sin, humans were still human, but without sin. Jesus himself was fully human as well as divine, but he never sinned. He was tempted just as we are, but he never yielded to those temptations and sinned (Hebrews 4:15).
Psychology from a Christian Perspective
After considering our basic Christian perspective, we are able to see how psychology can fit into it. We begin by placing things already discussed in the perspective, then continuing to add to it throughout the book.
Definition
As we have seen, psychology has had a number of definitions. At its beginning scientific psychology was the study of consciousness or the mind. Then this was abandoned in favor of psychology as the study of behavior. Currently most introductory psychology textbooks define it as the study of "behavior and mental processes.'' This definition takes in the whole range of psychology and fits into our Christian perspective, as shown in Figure 1:3. Note that when concentrating on observable behavior, we are looking at the aspect of humans that is very similar to animals. We can study the overt behavior of humans in the same ways as we do that of animals. The study of animal behavior will also have implications for the study of humans. However, when we study humanity's mental processes we are studying beings quite different from animals and much more like God.
Figure 1:3 The definition of psychology from a Christian perspective.
HUMANS
Created . . . . . . . . . . . in the. . . . . . . image of God
Like Animals Like God
Overt Behavior. . . . .Definition. . . . Mental Processes
There is one danger in using this schematic diagram of the Christian perspective. That danger is that we may see it as strongly implying a dualism, when we want to emphasize the unity of human beings. You may ask, "Is a person really like animals or really like God? '' Such a question is inappropriate because we are both like animals and like God. The question is not, "Should psychologists study overt behavior or mental processes?'' They should study both. A study of overt behavior that ignores mental processes will give a distorted view of human behavior. Likewise, studying mental processes without considering overt behavior will give a distorted view.
Goals
We discussed the various goals of three systems of psychology in the Prologue, so we need to look at the goals of a Christian psychology. These goals are presented in Figure 1:4. Note that one basic goal is to understand God's creation and control it (have dominion over it) to a greater degree, especially the behavior and mental processes of living beings in that creation. As Christians we are interested in learning not only about God's creation, but about God himself. Although this is not one of the primary goals of psychology, it may well be that as we understand more about human behavior, we will understand God better, since humans are made in his image.
Figure 1:4 Goals of psychology from a Christian perspective.
HUMANS
Created . . . . . . . . . . . in the. . . . . . . image of God
Like Animals Like God
Overt Behavior. . . . . . Definition. . . . Mental Processes
Understand. . . . . . . . .Goals. . . . . . .Make people
Creation Like God
Another major goal of missionaries is to help humans become as God-like as possible. We must always keep this goal in mind. We are not just trying to make people "not sick'' or help them adjust to the world, but to make them like God (like Christ). As we study the factors in the development of Christ-like traits, we can use our knowledge to help immature Christians become more like God. Applied psychology becomes a matter of promoting Christian maturity rather than helping people conform more to whatever society considers normal. The first step in this process is to introduce people to Christ and to do this in such a way that they will want to make a commitment to him. Then we are commanded to go beyond this-in the Great Commission, when we are told to make disciples. We cannot produce spiritual life or growth, but we can bring about conditions that will encourage such growth.
Systems
Considering only the three major systems most relevant to missionaries, we can place them into our Christian perspective. If we review the assumptions given in Figure 1:1, we will be able to see how these major systems fit into it. Since the major assumptions of psychoanalysis are that people are evil, determined, irrational, and not conscious of their inner motives, we will place psychoanalysis under the animal-like aspects of humans as shown in Figure 1:5. Although many Christians would not consider animals evil, animals are determined, irrational, and not conscious, at least as far as we know.
Since the major assumptions of humanistic psychology are that humans are good, free, rational, and conscious, we will consider humanistic psychology as studying the God-like aspects of humans, as shown in Figure 1:5. (Humanistic psychologists themselves may disagree with this.) Finally,
Figure 1:5 Systems of psychology from a Christian perspective.
HUMANS
Created . . . . . . . . . . . in the. . . . . . . image of God
Like Animals Like God
Overt Behavior. . . . . . Definition. . . . Mental Processes
Understand. . . . . . . . . Goals. . . . . . . Make people
Creation Like God
Psychoanalysis. . . . . .Systems. . . . . Humanistic
Behaviorism Psychology
behaviorists assume that humans are determined and much like animals. In fact, Watson (1913/1968) stated that behaviorists recognized no dividing line between "man and brute."
Since these (and other) major systems of psychology can be subsumed under our Christian perspective, we will not take extreme positions on these issues. As shown in Figure 1:1, our perspective places us in the center of all of these assumptions. That is, we believe that humans were created good, but that they fell into sin (Genesis 3); therefore, they are both good and evil. In some respects human behavior is determined, but many Christians believe that God made us actually capable of choosing whether to follow him or not. As created in God's image we are rational beings, but we also find that we act irrationally at times. Finally, much of the time we are conscious of our motives. but there are times when we are quite unaware of why we act the way we do. Making these assumptions about our counselees does not simplify our approach to counseling, but makes it more complex. The major approaches to counseling try to simplify things, usually to the point of excluding some major aspect of people. From our Christian perspective, we will try to consider the animal-like, the God-like, and the unique aspects of the unified human being.
Methods
Finally, how do the methods of research fit into this Christian perspective? The most basic research methods involve watching and listening to see what happens and then describing what one has observed. This kind of research is appropriate for a broad range of things, but it rarely allows one to draw cause-effect conclusions. It is appropriate for observing some of the God-like characteristics of people as shown in Figure 1:6.
To determine what condition(s) cause what outcomes, one needs to manipulate conditions, to have some experimental controls. Since the experimental method involves a great deal of experimental control, it is most appropriate for studying animals, and those aspects of humans that are most similar to animals, as shown in Figure 1:6. In most experiments the subjects are viewed as reacting, noninitiating organisms. The experimental method is particularly well-suited to study these aspects of humans. When these controlled conditions are used, one can draw conclusions about cause-effect relationships.
Figure 1:6 Research methods from a Christian perspective.
HUMANS
Created . . . . . . . . . . . in the. . . . . . . image of God
Like Animals Like God
Overt Behavior. . . . . . Definition. . . . Mental Processes
Understand. . . . . . . . . Goals. . . . . . . Make people
Creation Like God
Psychoanalysis. . . . . . Systems. . . . . Humanistic
Behaviorism Psychology
Experimental . . . . . . .Methods . . . . Descriptive
Methods of Research
Most general psychology texts include a section on research methods in psychology. Although many different methods are usually discussed, they can usually be classified into two categories, descriptive methods and experimental methods.
Descriptive Methods
First are the descriptive methods, including all those in which the researcher does not exercise experimental control. Sometimes psychologists have a tendency to consider these methods "second-rate,'' because it is extremely difficult to prove cause-effect relationships with them. However, naturalistic observation, surveys, and correlation are acceptable methods of research.
Naturalistic Observation.
The most basic of these descriptive methods is naturalistic observation. In fact, it is the most basic method of science, since all of science begins with the scientist's observations. In this method, the scientist simply observes and records behavior in its natural setting without attempting to intervene at all.
Sometimes this method is the only one that can be used. For example, it is the only method available to astronomers, since they cannot insert and remove galaxies or stars, or even planets. Likewise, in many instances psychologists cannot maintain experimental control over everything happening to the subject during research, so they must be content with observations. This is true of psychologists interested in the influence of spiritual forces on individuals. They cannot completely control the effect of the Holy Spirit or of Satan on individuals, so they must use naturalistic observation.
Naturalistic observation is also a valuable source of hypotheses about the causes of behavior. One of the best ways to learn about your host culture is to observe nationals as they go about their daily tasks. As you watch, you may notice things that you do not understand, and you can ask people more familiar with the culture why nationals do these things.
When Moses sent the dozen men to explore Canaan, he told them to use naturalistic observation. He said, “See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many…” (Numbers 13:17-20). The men reported, “We can’t attack these people…All the people there are of great size…We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:31-33). Unfortunately they went beyond their own observations and reported what they thought the people there had observed as well.
Of course, nationals also watch missionaries and try to understand why the missionaries do things too. One behavior that some nationals have observed is that missionaries blow their noses into clean white pieces of cloth and put the discharge into their pockets. A common question is why they save this nasal discharge!
Survey
Asking people to report information about themselves and what they think or what they do is thousands of years old. Taking a census goes at least as far back as when God commanded Moses to “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families…” (Numbers 1:2). Most of that book of the Old Testament is about the survey Moses did.
Giving survey questionnaires is a common way of gathering information about missionaries as well. Dorothy Gish was interested in what caused missionaries to feel stress as they worked in other cultures. She asked 970 missionaries to rate 65 different items as to how much stress each one caused. She received responses from 549 people serving around the world and the most stressful thing overall was “Confronting others when necessary.” Of course, she found differences in those serving in different places, for different lengths of time, of different ages, and so forth and published the results in the Journal of Psychology and Theology in 1983, http://www.missionarycare.com/dbFullArticle.asp?articleid=94.
Years later Joan Carter wondered if stress had increased or decreased and if the causes of stress had changed. She asked the same questions and added a few more as well. The 306 missionaries participating in her survey felt higher levels of stress overall, but Gish’s “Confronting others when necessary” was still at the top of the list. (Carter had added some other possible stressors, and “Seeing needs I am unable to meet” was actually a little higher). Carter also published her results in the Journal of Psychology and Theology in 1999, http://www.missionarycare.com/dbFullArticle.asp?articleid=610 .
Correlation
Another descriptive method is correlation, going one step beyond those of naturalistic observation and survey research. Correlation results in a number that tells the researcher not only that there is a relationship, but whether the relationship is positive or negative, and how great the relationship is. Although the numerical equations were not available when it was written, the Bible gives verbal examples of both positive and negative correlations. An example of a positive correlation is “where sin increased, grace increased all the more” (Romans 5:20). An example of a negative correlation is “Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith…?” (James 2:5).
The correlation method also allows us to predict how well a person will do on future, related tasks. To be admitted to college, one must pass before admissions committees, which often use correlation techniques to predict whether the prospective student can succeed, based on high school grades and admission test scores. People who have high grades and high test scores are more likely to succeed in college, but cause-effect cannot be determined. That is both high test scores and high grades may be caused by high ability combined with high motivation.
Steve Sweatman published an article studying missionaries during their first term of cross-cultural service while adapting to the stress of adapting to the culture. He studied the relationships between marital satisfaction, depression, and anxiety. He found a significant relationship between general marital satisfaction and depression, but not between satisfaction and anxiety. It could be that depression causes marital dissatisfaction, that marital dissatisfaction causes depression, or that both of these are caused by something else. Sweatman published his results in the same issue of the 1999 Journal of Psychology in which Joan Carter published her expansion of the Dorothy Gish study. http://www.missionarycare.com/dbFullArticle.asp?articleid=608
Experimental Methods
The other major method of research is the experimental method. Since the main objective of research is to discover cause-effect relationships, the experimental method is used whenever possible. The basic idea of the experimental method is to take two groups of subjects (or one group two different conditions) and treat them exactly the same in every way but one. If they behave differently after the treatments, the researchers conclude that the different treatments caused the difference in behaviors.
An Ancient Experiment
Though most people maintain that the experimental method was developed during the modern scientific revolution a few hundred years ago, an experiment is recorded in the first chapter of the book of Daniel in the Old Testament a few thousand years ago. While being educated for government service in Babylon, Daniel and his Hebrew friends did not want to eat the rich foods provided for them because the believed that the food and wine would defile them. Daniel requested permission for them to eat vegetables and water instead. However, the official in charge was afraid to grant this request because he feared for his life if these four students did not do well on the diet of vegetables and water (Daniel 1:3-10).
At that point Daniel and his three TCK friends proposed a brief experiment (pilot study) to the guard caring for them in their dormitory. They suggested that for ten days all the young men be treated the same except that the Hebrew TCKs would eat vegetables and drink water, while the other students ate the rich food and drank wine. At the end of the ten days the Hebrews looked healthier and better nourished than the others, so the guard concluded that vegetables and water were better for them than the rich food. At the end of their three years of education the four TCKs were at the top on the class in every way (Daniel 1:11-20).
Though refinements have been developed in the conduct of experiments and statistical methods have been derived to help draw conclusions, all of the basic elements of the experimental method are present in this experiment. Several basic variables should be considered in experiments.
Variables
Independent Variable. The guard manipulated the diet of the two groups: one group was given rich food and wine, and one group was given vegetables and water. This experiment really has two independent variables confounded so we do not get as much information as we would if it had been done slightly differently, but the results are still valid. We will discuss that in a section below.
Dependent Variable. The guard then judged how healthy and well-nourished they looked, the dependent variable. Their appearance depended on which diet of the independent variable they received. An experiment may measure several dependent variables if desired. For example, the students performance in classes or in sports could have also been measure.
Controlled Variable. As completely as possible, except for the independent variables, all other variables are kept the same in both groups. Those variables are the controlled variables. Except for their food and drink, all students were treated the same. They lived in the same dormitories, attended the same classes, studied in the same library, and so forth.
Experiments must have at least two conditions which are compared. This experiment was conducted using two different groups of people. Other experiments are done using one group of people that are given the different treatments of the independent variable at different times. Examining the two conditions in this experiment gives a clearer understanding of the variables.
Conditions
Experimental Condition (Experimental Group). The experimental condition in this study was the condition in which the students were given the vegetables and water, the TCK group. They received the “new” diet that was different from what was already in place, the “experimental” diet. The TCKs convinced the guard to see if this new diet would make any difference.
Control Condition (Control Group). The control condition in this study was the condition in which the students were given the rich food and wine, the rest of the students. They received the diet that was already in place so that the guard could see if the new diet made any difference.
The logic of the experiment is quite straight forward. The experimental group and the control group are treated exactly the same in every way except for what they eat and drink. Therefore, if they are different at the end of the time, that difference must be due to the effect of the independent variable, their food and drink.
Designs
Two (or more) Groups: Different Participants in Each Group. As we have seen, Daniel’s experiment was the most basic of experimental designs. He proposed two conditions with the experimental group being the Hebrew TCKs who ate vegetables and drank. The control group was composed of the other students who ate rich food and drank wine. Of course, he could have had more groups of students eating and drinking additional things.
One Group: Same Participants Measured Repeatedly.
With repeated measures designs, rather than having different people in all of the groups, one can measure each person under the different conditions. For example, in Daniel’s experiment the guard could have noted how healthy and well-nourished the TCKs looked after ten days of a diet of rich food and wine. Then he could have observed them again after ten days of a diet of vegetables and water. He did not do this because the TCKs did not want to defile themselves, so Daniel had proposed an experiment using different people in each group.
Repeated measures designs are used to compare the same people in different situations, and most often to study changes over time. Christopher Rosik and Jelna Pandzik used the same Marital Satisfaction Inventory (MSI) that Sweatman used in his study of how satisfaction was related to depression and anxiety during the first term of missionary service. However Rosik and Pandzik were interested in finding how marital satisfaction changed over time in missionary marriages.
They studied how scores changed in 28 couples from the time they were missionary candidates to the time they were on their first Home Ministry Assignment (furlough) four years later to the time they were on their second Home Ministry Assignment another four years later. They found more dissatisfaction with their marriage on the MSI during their first Home Ministry Assignment than four years earlier when they were candidates. In addition, they found that this dissatisfaction was still present during their second Home Ministry Assignment another four years later. That is satisfaction with their marriages declined during their first term of service and did not recover during the second term of service.
In addition Rosik and Pandzik were able to pinpoint which of the ten areas on the MSI were the ones that were the cause of the decline in satisfaction. This was useful information for people in member care who want to prevent marital problems from occurring. Rosik and Pandzik published their research in the Journal of Psychology and Christianity in 2008.
http://www.missionarycare.com/dbFullArticle.asp?articleid=888
Factorial Designs. A couple of pages back we mentioned that this experiment had confounded two independent variables, diet and liquid. This does not invalidate the experiment because it still shows that vegetables and water are better for a person than are rich food and wine. However, statistics have now been developed that let us use factorial designs to find out whether the difference was due to the diet, the drink, or an interaction between the two. Here is the design that could be used with four groups (A, B, C, and D), two diets (vegetables and rich food), and two liquids (water and wine).
|
|
Vegetables |
Rich Food |
|
Water |
A |
B |
|
Wine |
C |
D |
Note that in Daniel’s experiment the TCKs were Group A (vegetables and water), and the other students were Group D (rich food and wine). With this factorial design with a TCK placed in each group and the other students also divided among the four groups the experimenter could find out about the diet, drink, or some combination was necessary to have an effect. If the food is the crucial factor Groups A and C would be higher than Groups B and D. If the drink is the crucial factor, Groups A and B would be higher than groups C and D. If there was an interaction between them Group A would be better than Group D, but Groups B and C would not necessarily differ.
Level of Measurement. Some people may raise an objection to the guard judging only that the TCKs looked “healthier” and “better nourished” than the rest of the class. This is not a problem because it is common even today to measure at different levels of measurement. Different statistics have been developed to the various levels of measurement. Here are some of the levels of measurement used today.
For further information about specific topics in research methods click on the following links to parts of Chapter 1 in Dewey’s on-line text.
Ethical Issues
Ethical questions arise when scientific research is conducted. Let us consider a few of them here.
Is it ethical to experiment on people?
Since people are created in God’s image, one can ask whether or not it is acceptable to experiment on them. Daniel’s experiment was carried out on himself and his three friends, all people created in God’s image. This received God’s blessing and His giving them knowledge and understanding of all kinds of learning (Daniel 1: 17). Therefore, one can conclude that some experiments do not violate respect for people made in His image.
However, one can find other experiments on people which are widely condemned as being unethical. Several lists of the worst of these experiments can be found on the Internet, such as http://listverse.com/2008/09/07/top-10-unethical-psychological-experiments/. For example, in the 1930s Wendell Johnson divided 22 orphans who stuttered into two groups. One group was given positive speech therapy and praised for their progress, but the other group was given negative speech therapy and ridiculed for their speech problem. The University of Iowa apologized for the experiment in 2001. As a result of such experiments, the American Psychological Association has developed ethical principles for research with humans (http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx). This code of conduct basically says that the following conditions must be met.
· Informed consent. The participants must receive information about the experiment so that they can decide whether or not they want to join the study.
· Protection. The participants must not be harmed or made uncomfortable without consent.
· Confidentiality. Information gathered must not be shared with others without permission.
· Debrief. The research and results must be explained when the study is over.
These safeguards protect the human dignity of beings created in God’s image.
Is it ethical to experiment on animals?
Since animals are similar to human beings, one can also ask whether or not it is acceptable to experiment on them. We do not have an example of the use of animals in experiments in Scripture, but God did give humans dominion over animals at creation (Genesis 1:26). This did not give people permission to abuse animals, but those animals were under human control.
As with humans, we can find many experiments in which animals were harmed, many times unnecessarily. Organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp) list many ways they believe animals are abused for the benefit of humans. Their basic position is that animals have the same rights as humans and should not be used for human benefit, such as in human clothing or even as human food.
As with humans, the American Psychological Association has developed ethical principles for the use of animals in experimentation (http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx), “Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals.” Along with others, these include guidelines for
These guidelines protect animals from abuse in research settings. Of course, they allow the use of animals.
Is it ethical to deceive participants in experiments?
As I write this in early 2010, a story on National Public Radio (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125176684) is titled, “Shocking TV Experiment Sparks Ethical Concerns.” The story begins, “A French TV show has raised anew questions about when it's acceptable to subject people to emotional harm as part of a psychological experiment.” Contestants on a TV quiz show were instructed to give increasingly strong electric shocks to a man strapped in a chair as the audience cheered him on. No shocks were actually given, and the man strapped in the chair was acting. This show was crafted along the lines of an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram conducted half a century before. His study about obedience to authority sparked immediate ethical controversy so strong that his admission to APA membership was delayed a year (http://www.stanleymilgram.com/milgram.php).
This controversy is strong among Christians as well. The Bible has dozens of passages condemning deception or lying, but it has one instance of deception receiving God’s approval. Joshua 2 tells how Rahab lied to the king’s messengers to save the lives of the two Israelites she had hidden on her roof, as well as the lives of everyone in her family. She is mentioned among the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. Thus some Christians say that deception is wrong, others say that one has to evaluate each deception situation and decide which ones are wrong and which ones are all right.
Again, the American Psychological Association has developed an ethical standard for deception. “Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.” (http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx) Of course, most psychologists believe that their research is important enough to deceive.
Conclusion
Of course, refinements in experimental design and the statistics used to draw conclusions today require today’s experimenter to do other things, such as:
Such procedures are routinely followed today but were not understood thousands of years ago. A century in the future experimenters will probably have other new procedures in place. However, several of the ideas explained may have raised questions.