Social Rejection and Aggression1
Running head: SOCIAL REJECTION, AGGRESSION, AND ETHICAL METHADOLOGY
Social Rejection and Aggression: Manipulating Methodology to Promote Ethicality
Andrew Littlefield
University of Missouri
SOCIAL REJECTION, AGGRESSION, AND ETHICAL METHADOLOGY 1
The study conducted by Twenge, Baumeister, Tice and Stucke(2001) involved five experiments testing the effects of social exclusion on subsequent aggression. Participants completed a personality questionnaire and were then exposed tofalse feedback provided by the researcher about the participants’ likely future relationships. In all five experiments, the crucial condition of interestwas the future alone condition. In this condition, participants were given a grim eventuality of living a life alone. The description included, “You’re the type who will end up alone later in life….relationships don’t last…the odds are you’ll end up being alone more and more” (Twenge et al., 2001).These participants were compared to control groups that were given alternative stories that did not include predictions of prospective loneliness. The findings from the studies consistently showed that exclusion produces aggression, even across separate measures of aggression and independent of threats to the ego. Rejected participants abnegated their aggression only when interacting with a person who treated them nicely. Twenge et al. (2001) concluded that exclusion from social groups and relationships appears to produce a strong tendency toward aggressive behavior.
An obviously crucial part of the experiment was the deception imposed on the participants by the researchers. Though exposure to social rejection may be necessary, alternatives to deception may exist whichproduce equally valid results while maintaining ethical endowment. The necessity of the use of deception can be determined by the assessment of alternative methods. Although the deception used by Twenge et al. (2001) may generatenocuous eventuations, alternative methods may correspondingly construct inimical outcomes for rejected participants.Probing both the pros and pitfalls of deception and other methods used to stimulate social rejection will prescribe prospective methods to conduct an equally valid yet ethically superior experiment compared to contemporary methods.
One alternative of deception involves participants’ role playing, in which participants would pretend to expose themselves to different forms of peer rejection. Though this method may intuitively effectuateinnocuousconsequencesfor participants, it containsdeterrents to validity and may encourage malignant outcomes. External validity is hindered by the lack of realism produced by role playing. Also, there is no guarantee that this method will inoculate participants from detriment. Role playing can become serious and produce disastrous effects to both participants and researchers, forcing studies to be postponed indefinitely to prevent odious results (Sinclair, personal correspondence, 10/27/03).
Another possibility to deception would to be conduct complete information study, in which the participants obtain complete disclosure before the experiment commences. This method may appear ethicallysuperior since it involves no deception or manipulation of participants without their knowledgeable consent. However, participants’ knowledge of the experiment may lead to a threat to construct validity in which hypothesis-guessing within experimental conditions creates erroneous behavior. Furthermore, previous research indicates that participants are actually more suspicious and hostile in complete information studies compared to studies using alternative methods(Sinclair, personal correspondence, 10/27/03).
Though alternative methods to deception may appear circumspect and abortive, the use of deception should not be assumed to be the perennial method for conducting research involving social rejection. It is obvious this method produced the intended outcomes of the hypothesis, but at what costs for the participants? It is likely that the deception in the experiment produced short-term effects detrimental to the participants. Though they were debriefed, the participants’ exposure to feelings of rejection could have caused anxiety, worry, and lowered self-esteem. Though psychologically healthy participants may promptly dismiss these effects, it is difficult to say what potential injurious effects are inflicted on participants that already suffer from low self-esteem, a history of peer rejection, or depression. Though Twenge et al. (2001) attempted to minimize the impact of deception on the participants’ mien, the possible outcomes from such malicious beguilement bedaub the conclusion of benefits outweighing the costs in this study with uncertainty.
However, a logical consecution to the study would involve similar methodology but embody features that promote increased ethicality without significant cost to validity. Participants would be prescreened by completing several tests that measure potential warning signs, such as depression, low-self esteem, or a chronic history of peer rejection. These participants would be excluded from the remainder of the study. The methodology used by Twenge et al. (2001) would be executed identically as in the aforementioned study. However, follow up debriefings would be conducted at a one month and six month intervals. Participants exposed to rejection conditions would be asked a few questions which would help verify that any possible negative effects from the study have become extinct. Participants displaying any warning signs would be brought back into the laboratory for further debriefing and evaluation.
These slight yet significant modifications to the experiments conducted by Twenge et al. (2001) may hinder external validity and create a cumbersome follow up for researchers. However, they create a superior amalgam of both ethicality and validity compared to previous research. Though excluding participant’s who display initial warning signs may affect external validity, eliminating participants susceptible to the baneful nature of social rejection greatly reduces potential outcomes of significant participant harm. Contacting participants may add to the workload of the researcher, but if the results of the study were worth the initial investment of time, likewise is the verification of the well-being of participants.
References
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D.M., & Stucke, T. S. (2001) If you can’t join them, beat them: Effects of social exclusion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1058-1069.