1) Read the following article: Middlemist, R. D., Knowles…

1)  Read the following article:  Middlemist, R. D., Knowles, E. S., & Matter, C. F. (1976). Personal space invasions in the lavatory: Suggestive evidence for arousal. , (5), 541. 2)  Answer the following questions: A)  Do you think this study was ethical?  Why or why not? B)  Do you think the information learned in this study justified the method used to collect the data?  Why or why not? C)  Can you of any other way the researchers could have studied this phenomenon without using this method?

A) The ethicality of the study conducted by Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter (1976) can be debated. On one hand, the study involved invading personal space in a lavatory, which can be seen as a violation of privacy and potentially causing discomfort to the participants. Respect for personal space is a cultural norm, and invading it without consent could be considered unethical.

On the other hand, researchers might argue that the invasion of personal space was necessary to study the phenomenon of arousal within the context of personal space. In order to gather accurate data, the participants needed to experience a genuine invasion of their personal space. The researchers could argue that any potential discomfort experienced by the participants was necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge.

B) The method used by the researchers may be justified by the information learned from the study. By invading the personal space of the participants, the researchers were able to observe and measure their physiological responses, specifically their level of arousal. This study provided suggestive evidence that personal space invasions can lead to arousal, which has implications for understanding human behavior and social interactions.

One could argue that the ends, in this case, justify the means. The information gained from this study contributes to our understanding of the effects of personal space invasions on arousal levels, which has potential implications in fields such as psychology, sociology, and communication studies.

C) While the method used in this study provided valuable insights, there may have been alternative ways to study the phenomenon without invading personal space. Researchers could have conducted surveys or interviews to gather self-reported experiences of personal space invasions and the corresponding levels of arousal. This would have allowed participants to reflect on their experiences without actually being invaded, potentially avoiding any ethical concerns.

Additionally, researchers could have utilized virtual or simulated environments to create controlled situations where personal space invasions could be studied without actually invading individuals in a real-life lavatory. This approach would have provided a more controlled and ethical platform for studying the phenomenon.

Another possible alternative would be to conduct observational studies in public spaces where personal space invasions naturally occur, such as crowded trains or buses. This would allow researchers to observe the effects of personal space invasions on arousal levels in a more naturalistic setting, without directly interfering with individuals’ privacy.

Overall, while the method used in the study by Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter (1976) provided valuable insights, there were alternative approaches that could have been considered to study the phenomenon without directly invading personal space. These alternatives would have allowed for a more ethical approach while still gathering valuable data.