Single-Sex Convenience in Psychological Research

In the article, Guidelines for Avoiding Sexism in Psychological Research, one of the problems that could occur in the research portion of a study is the selection of research participants being of only one sex for the matter of convenience. The article states that this can be fixed by using “research participants of both sexes wherever feasible so that results can apply to males and females… When subjects of only one sex are used, the researcher should indicate why this is appropriate if it is not evident by the nature of the study itself,” (p.

583).

The authors, in this case, I would agree with. Although I find it necessary to include both sexes at all times, it is understandable that in some studies, one sex might only be necessary to study when it comes to a subject that relates strictly to that sex. In the second article, Avoiding Heterosexist Bias in Psychological Research, I found it to be less repetitive as the first, but just as concise and efficient in communicating the topic it is on.

When considering certain areas of research sometimes the research question will completely “ignore or deny the existence of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people,” (p. 958).

Not only is this not including an important demographicC, but in certain topics of research, such as coping and stress, these individuals should be considered strongly due to the stigmatization of their sexual orientation and the resulting stress that brings. Out of the two articles given, both brought forward valid points and questions to Consider when one is conducting and/or taking part in a study in order to establish non- bias results.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified

Proficient in: Sexism

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

However, like the second article, the first article could’ve provided less quantitative results and more qualitative results. Some of the “problems” stated could have easily been grouped together and reworded in a way that touched all aspects of each problem without losing the basis of that problem.

For example, “The selection of research participants is limited to one sex on the basis of convenience,” and “When unanticipated gender differences emerge in research, researchers drop the female research participants from the analysis, rather than examining the reasons underlying the sex difference and redesigning the study.” Both of these problems could’ve been categorized and talked about together because they are both related to leaving one sex out of the research process.

With more body in the text, and more focused points, the second article was far easier to follow than the first one. However, the first article still brought forth many valid points to take into consideration when examining a study or conducting one oneself.

References

Denmark, E, Russo, N. E., Frieze, I. H., & Sechzer, J. A. (1988). Guidelines for avoiding sexism in psychological research: A report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Nonsexist Research. American Psychologist, 43(7), 582-585. doi: 10.1037//0003 066x.43.7.582

Herek, G. M., Kimmel, D. C., Amaro, H., & Melton, G. B. (1991). Avoiding heterosexist bias in psychological research. American Psychologist, 46(9), 957-963. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.46.9.957