1
CHAPTER 3
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE CONDUCT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
CHAPTER OUTLINE AND OBJECTIVES
I. Introduction
II. Ethical Issues to Consider Before Beginning Research
Prior to conducting any study, the proposed research must be reviewed to determine if it meets
ethical standards.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) review psychological research to protect the rights and welfare of
human participants.
Institutional Animal Care and Use committees (IACUCs) review research conducted with animals to
ensure that animals are treated humanely.
III. The Risk/Benefit Ratio
A subjective evaluation of the risks and benefits of a research project is used to determine whether
the research should be conducted.
A. Determining Risk
Potential risks in psychological research include risk of physical injury, social injury, and mental or
emotional stress.
Risks must be evaluated in terms of potential participants’ everyday activities, their physical and
mental health, and capabilities.
B. Minimal Risk
A study is described as involving “minimal risk” when the procedures or activities in the study are
similar to those experienced by participants in their everyday life.
C. Dealing with Risk
Whether “at risk” or “at minimal risk,” research participants must be protected. More safeguards
are needed as risks become greater.
To protect participants from social risks, information they provide should be anonymous, or if that
is not possible, the confidentiality of their information should be maintained.
IV. Informed Consent
Researchers and participants enter into a social contract, often using an informed consent procedure.
Researchers are ethically obligated to describe the research procedures clearly, identify any aspects
2
of the study that might influence individuals’ willingness to participate, and answer any questions
participants have about the research.
Research participants must be allowed to withdraw their consent at any time without penalties.
Individuals must not be pressured to participate in research.
Research participants are ethically obligated to behave appropriately during the research by not lying,
cheating, or engaging in other fraudulent behavior.
Informed consent must be obtained from legal guardians for individuals unable to provide consent
(e.g., young children, mentally impaired individuals); assent to participate should be obtained from
individuals unable to provide informed consent.
Researchers should consult with knowledgeable others, including an IRB, when deciding whether to
dispense with informed consent, such as when research is conducted in public settings. These
settings require special attention to protecting individuals’ privacy.
Privacy refers to the rights of individuals to decide how information about them is to be communicated
to others.
V. Deception in Psychological Research
Deception in psychological research occurs when researchers withhold information or intentionally
misinform participants about the research. By its nature, deception violates the ethical principle of
informed consent.
Deception is considered a necessary research strategy in some psychological research.
Deceiving individuals in order to get them to participate in the research is always unethical.
Researchers must carefully weigh the costs of deception against the potential benefits of the research
when considering the use of deception.
VI. Debriefing
Researchers are ethically obligated to seek ways to benefit participants even after the research is
completed. One of the best ways to accomplish this goal is by providing participants with a thorough
debriefing.
Debriefing benefits both participants and researchers.
Researchers are ethically obligated to explain to participants their use of deception as soon as is
feasible.
Debriefing informs participants about the nature of the research and their role in the study and
educates them about the research process. The overriding goal of debriefing is to have individuals
feel good about their participation.
Debriefing allows researchers to learn how participants viewed the procedures, allows potential
3
insights into the nature of the research findings, and provides ideas for future research.
VII. Research with Animals
Animals are used in research to gain knowledge that will benefit humans, for example, by helping to
cure diseases.
Researchers are ethically obligated to acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance
with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.
The use of animals in research involves complex issues and is the subject of much debate.
VIII. Reporting Of Psychological Research
Investigators attempt to communicate their research findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and
the APA Code of Ethics provides guidelines for this process.
Decisions about who should receive publication credit are based on the scholarly importance of the
contribution.
Ethical reporting of research requires recognizing the work of others by using proper citations and
references; failure to do so may result in plagiarism.
Proper citation includes using quotation marks when material is taken directly from a source and
citing secondary sources when an original source is not consulted.
IX. Steps for Ethical Compliance
Ethical decision making involves reviewing the facts of the proposed research situation, identifying
relevant ethical issues and guidelines, and considering multiple viewpoints and alternative methods or
procedures.
Authors who submit research manuscripts to an APA journal also must submit forms describing their
compliance with ethical standards.
X. Summary
REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
These review questions appear in the textbook (without answers) at the end of Chapter 3, and can be
used for a homework assignment or exam preparation. Answers to these questions appear in italic.
1. Explain why researchers submit research proposals to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) before beginning a research project, and
briefly describe the functions of these committees in the research process.
4
5
indicate that informed consent may not be necessary?
7. What three dimensions should researchers consider when they attempt to decide whether information
is public or private?
8. Explain why deception may sometimes be necessary in psychological research. Describe briefly the
questions researchers should ask before using deception, and describe the conditions under which it
is always unethical to deceive participants.
9. In what ways can debriefing benefit the participant? In what ways can debriefing benefit the
researcher?
78)
10. What ethical obligations are specified in the APA Ethics Code for researchers who use animals in
their research?
11. What conditions are required by the APA Ethics Code before animals may be subjected to stress or
pain?
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written
consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
12. Explain how researchers decide when an individual can be credited as an author of a published
scientific report.
13. Describe the procedures an author must follow to avoid plagiarism when citing information from an
original source or from a secondary source.
14. Identify the steps in an ethically informed decision process regarding whether a proposed research
project should be conducted.
15. What must authors include when submitting a research manuscript to an APA journal?
CHALLENGE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
These questions appear in the textbook at the end of Chapter 3, and can be used for a homework
assignment, in-class discussion, or exam preparation. Answers to these questions appear in italic.
Note: Unlike in other chapters, no answers to the Challenge Questions or Stretching Exercises are
provided in this chapter. To resolve ethical dilemmas, you must be able to apply the appropriate ethical
standards and to reach an agreement regarding the proposed research after discussion with others
whose backgrounds and knowledge differ from your own. You will therefore have to consider points of
view different from your own. We urge you to approach these problems as part of a group discussion of
these important issues.
The first two challenge questions for this chapter include a hypothetical research proposal involving a
rationale and method similar to that of actual published research. To answer these questions, you will
need to be familiar with the APA ethical principles and other material on ethical decision making
presented in this chapter, including the recommended steps for ethical decision making that were outlined
7
at the end of this chapter. As you will see, your task is to decide whether specific ethical standards have
been violated and to make recommendations regarding the proposed research, including the most basic
recommendation of whether the investigator should be allowed to proceed. You may wish to follow the
“Steps for Ethical Compliance” identified within this chapter.
1. IRB Proposal
Instructions Assume you are a member of an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Besides yourself,
the committee includes a clinical psychologist, a social psychologist, a social worker, a philosopher, a
Protestant minister, a history professor, and a respected business executive in the community. The
following is a summary of a research proposal that has been submitted to the IRB for review. You are
asked to consider what questions you might want to ask the investigator and whether you would
approve carrying out the study at your institution in its present form, whether modification should be
made before approval, or whether the proposal should not be approved. (An actual research proposal
submitted to an IRB would include more details than we present here.)
Rationale College students (women more than men) spend many hours each week on social
networking sites, especially Facebook. The present study will investigate predictors of online behavior
using the Big Five personality test, which identifies five personality traits: openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (emotional stability). This well–
known Five-Factor model of personality has been used to predict numerous outcomes, including job
performance, psychological well-being, and academic achievement. Recently, the five traits have
been used to predict social media use, including number of Facebook contacts and type of Twitter
user.
One variation of the Big-Five test asks individuals to use a 5-point scale to indicate the extent to
which they agree with many different statements about themselves. Sample items associated with the
five dimensions are:
• I have a vivid imagination. (Openness)
• I follow a schedule. (Conscientiousness)
• I am the life of the party. (Extraversion)
• I am interested in people. (Agreeableness)
• I get irritated easily. (Neuroticism)
The present study investigates whether the Big-Five personality traits can be validly assessed by
monitoring the Facebook pages of college students. Specifically, two graduate-student judges will use
information from an individual’s Facebook page (e.g., Profile, Timeline, Likes) to rate each users’
personality.
Method Participants will be students enrolled in a large introductory psychology class taught by the
principal investigator. Students in the class who use Facebook will be asked to “friend” the instructor
so that her teaching assistants can communicate with them (e.g., answer questions, provide
messages related to the course, give feedback, announce course-related events). Using a Facebook
account set up for this purpose by the instructor, two graduate students will monitor the Facebook
pages of students in the class. Monitoring will involve twice–weekly “visits” to the student’s Facebook
page over an 8-week period. On each visit, the graduate-student judges will use whatever information
is available to rate the students on the Big-Five dimensions. Ratings will be adjusted as new
information becomes available throughout the 8-week period.
Near the end of the semester students in the psychology class will be asked to take a paper–and-
pencil version of the Big-Five personality test in class as part of a class discussion on the psychology
of personality. Students will be asked to put their names on the test so that the instructor can provide
8
them with the results of the test, which they can interpret based on class discussion of the Big-Five
traits.
Results from the in-class personality test will be compared with results obtained by the graduate–
student judges using information from students’ Facebook pages. Data analysis will examine which
traits, if any, can be validly assessed using information found on Facebook, and whether both sets of
personality ratings predict students’ grades in the class. A positive correlation between the students’
test results and the judges’ ratings would suggest that information found on Facebook pages may
provide important ways to assess personality. If so, additional analyses can be conducted to examine
the relationship between personality traits and use of social media.
Finally, there’s no information regarding whether students were debriefed about their participation.
2. IACUC Proposal
Instructions Assume you are a member of an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC). Besides yourself, the committee includes a veterinarian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a
respected business executive in the community. The following is a summary of a research proposal
that has been submitted to the IACUC for review. You are asked to consider what questions you
might want to ask the investigator and whether you would approve carrying out this study at your
institution in its present form, whether modification should be made before approval, or whether the
proposal should not be approved. (An actual research proposal submitted to an IACUC would include
more details than we present here.)
Rationale The investigators seek to investigate the role of subcortical structures in the limbic system
in moderating emotion and aggression. This proposal is based on previous research from this
laboratory which has shown a significant relationship between damage in various subcortical brain
areas of monkey subjects and changes in eating, aggression, and other social behaviors (e.g.,
courtship). The areas under investigation are those that sometimes have been excised in
psychosurgery with humans when attempting to control hyperaggressive and assaultive behaviors.
Moreover, the particular subcortical area that is the focus of the present proposal has been
hypothesized to be involved in controlling certain sexual activities that are sometimes the subject of
psychological treatment (e.g., hypersexuality). Previous studies have been unable to pinpoint the
exact areas thought to be involved in controlling certain behaviors; the proposed research seeks to
improve on this knowledge.
Method Two groups of rhesus monkeys will be the subjects. One group (N = 4) will be a control
group. These animals will undergo a sham operation, which involves anesthetizing them and drilling a
hole in the skull. These animals then will be tested and evaluated in the same manner as the
experimental animals. The experimental group will undergo an operation to lesion a small part of a
subcortical structure known as the amygdala. Two of the animals will have lesions in one site; the
remaining two will receive lesions in another site of this structure. After recovery, all animals will be
tested on a variety of tasks measuring their food preferences, social behaviors with same-sex and
opposite-sex monkeys, and emotional responsiveness (e.g., reactions to a novel fear stimulus: an
9
experimenter in a clown face). The animals will be housed in a modern animal laboratory; the
operations will be performed and recovery monitored by a licensed veterinarian. After testing, the
experimental animals will be sacrificed and the brains prepared for histological examination.
(Histology is necessary to confirm the locus and extent of lesions.) The control animals will not be
3. In this chapter you learned that Milgram’s well–known research study (see Box 3.2) was recently
replicated, but conducted under conditions imposed to better safeguard the welfare of the participants
(Burger, 2009). Please review the restrictions that were placed on Milgram’s original procedure (see
Box 3.4) before answering the following questions.
A. Do you believe deception was ethically justified in Milgram’s original experiment? What about
Burger’s replication?
10
11
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS FOR CLASS DISCUSSION
Presented below are suggestions and guides for in-class activities that allow students to think critically about
Chapter 3 concepts.
1. A Broader View
Institutional Review Boards are established on the basis of ethical guidelines that are broader than the
APA Ethical Standards. We have found it helpful to introduce students to a report that is used by the
IRBs at many institutions. The report is known as the “Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines
for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” It was done under the auspices of the U.S. National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. [DHEW
Publication No. 78-0012; available from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.]
The Belmont Report emphasizes three basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and
justice. Respect entails treating individuals as autonomous agents and recognizing that individuals with
diminished autonomy are entitled to protection. Beneficence entails the obligation of doing no harm to
individuals and maximizing possible benefits and minimizing possible harms to individuals. Justice
entails asking the questions of who ought to receive the benefits of research and who ought to bear its
burdens.
We have found it useful to have students discuss (in a large group or in small groups) how the APA
ethical standards can be related to the ethical principles emphasized in the Belmont Report. We have
found the discussion useful more generally because it helps students realize that the APA ethical
standards are related to broader ethical issues in research. More specifically, students see the
convergence of specific APA standards such as informed consent and the ethical principle of respect for
persons. Similarly, the risk/benefit decision rule is related to beneficence (maximize possible benefits
and minimize possible harms); and voluntary participation in research and effective debriefing are
related to the ethical principle of justice.
2. Home Cooking
The challenge questions ask the students to work as an IRB to review brief descriptions of proposed
research. We provide two additional such cases in the next section. There are several benefits for
students, however, when they have the opportunity to review proposals written for your department’s
review committee or for your institution’s IRB. We believe that having students review actual IRB
proposals makes the process more real for them in two senses. They recognize that the IRB at their
institution does, in fact, review research proposals. Students also can get a better sense that the IRB’s
work is critical to research activity of faculty in the students’ department. It brings the IRB process
“closer to home.” A bonus of having students review IRB proposals from their institution is that they
learn about the types of research that are being done in the psychology department.
3. Deception: Pros and Cons
One of the most complex ethical issues associated with psychological research is the use of deception.
Students may find it helpful to outline the pros and cons. Alternatively, class discussion could center on
a debate, with those opposing or favoring the use of deception arguing their position. A starting point
could be this statement (Fisher & Fryberg, 1994, p. 417):
12
“Ethical arguments have focused on whether deceptive research practices are justified on the basis of
their potential societal benefit or violate moral principles of beneficence and respect for individuals and
the fiduciary responsibility of psychologists to research participants.”
• “Beneficence”: research activities should be beneficent (bring benefits) for individuals and
society.
• “Respect for individuals”: people should be treated as persons and not “objects” for study;
people have the right to make their own judgments and the procedures and purpose of the
research in which they are participating.
• “Fiduciary obligations of psychologists”: responsibilities of individuals who are given trust over
others, even if only temporarily; in the research situation, the researcher has responsibility for
the welfare of participants during the study and for the consequences of their participation.
For Continued Use of Deception
Against Use of Deception
Deception is needed in some studies to have
participants adopt a certain set of attitudes or
behaviors
Deception contradicts the principle of informed
consent; it does not represent an “open and
honest” relationship
Prohibiting deception would prevent researchers
from conducting a wide range of important studies
Undermines participants’ trust in their own
judgment
Deceptive practices are a kind of “technical
illusion,” not much different from special effects
that are part of everyday life
Participants learn to distrust others, especially
psychologists, whom they previously trusted to
provide valuable information and advice
Moral principles are suspended in other areas of
life, as with privileged information given to lawyers
Society will come to view psychologists as not to
be believed and lose trust in experts
Research suggests participants typically do not
respond negatively to being deceived
Scientists who lie contradict their supposed
dedication to seeking truth
4. Ethical Decision Making
These two brief proposals can be used for class discussion or as possible test questions. Students are
asked to read them from the perspective of someone who is on an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The students are then to respond to several
questions after each proposal that follow the steps in ethical decision making we describe near the end
of Chapter 3. We have included possible responses after each question. The proposals are presented
separately on following pages (“Ethical Decision Making”) to facilitate photocopying. Possible answers
are presented below.
A. This hypothetical proposal is based on previous research (e.g., Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S.
E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 55, 212-218).
(1) What ethical issues are relevant in this proposal?
13
14
15
16
Ethical Decision Making
A. This hypothetical proposal is based on previous research (see, for example, Hetherington, E. M., &
Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 55, 212-218).
The proposed study seeks to identify the personality factors associated with cheating behaviors in college
students. Participants will be students enrolled in two different sections of introductory psychology at a state
university. Students will complete a personality test during the first week of the course. Two situations will be
created to give students an opportunity to cheat. Situation 1 will be the first examination in the course, an
hour-long multiple-choice test. Students will be allowed to grade their own test in the following class period,
unaware that the examination will be graded and scores will be recorded in the interim. Situation 2 will be
the second examination in the course, an essay test. A week in advance, students will be given a list of five
questions and told that two of the questions will be on the exam. Examination booklets will be made
available prior to the exam “for practice.” At the time of the test, the examination booklets distributed by the
instructor will be unobtrusively marked so that any student substituting a “practice booklet” will be detected.
After the data are collected in the two situations, students will be told about the research study and those
students who cheated will be asked to take a make-up examination. Data analysis will consist of trying to
determine which personality variables best predict the incidence of cheating.
(1) What ethical issues are relevant in this proposal?
(2) What are the possible consequences (risks and benefits) of this research for: (a) the participants; (b) the
instructor/researcher; (c) other students; and (d) other instructors; (e) society?
(3) What alternative methods exist for conducting this research? What are the ethical consequences of
these methods (see Step 2)? What are the ethical consequences for not doing this research?
(4) As an IRB member, would you consent to this research? Would you ask for any modifications of the
research proposal?
17
Ethical Decision Making
B. This research proposal is based on previous research (see, for example, Seligman, M. E. P., Maier, S.
F., & Geer, J. H. (1968). Alleviation of learned helplessness in the dog. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 73, 256-262).
The proposed study seeks to extend previous research that examined “learned helplessness” in dogs.
Results of this and similar studies shed light on possible therapy procedures for humans who have
experienced traumatic events and who then show passive responses to future events. These results also
provide insight into the nature of depression.
“Learned helplessness” occurs when dogs who have been given inescapable electric shock while strapped
in a harness fail to behave normally when later placed in a situation in which they could avoid electrical
shock; that is, the dogs learn to be helpless. Previous research used a shuttlebox apparatus to assess
whether the dogs became helpless. In this situation, the floor on one side of the shuttlebox becomes
electrified. A dog that has not been previously shocked will learn to jump over a barrier to reach the side of
the shuttlebox that is not electrified. Dogs that earlier experienced inescapable electrical shock often fail to
learn this, and passively accept the electrical shock.
The proposed research will examine how helpless dogs can be taught to escape the shock in the
shuttlebox. A modeling procedure will be used in which helpless dogs will be paired with dogs that have not
been shocked. It is hypothesized that the normal dog will easily learn to avoid the shock in the shuttlebox
and correctly model the escape behavior for the helpless dog. The intent of this research is to demonstrate
that active escape behaviors can be easily modeled, which has implications for the treatment of humans
who are passive following traumatic events, and depressed individuals who respond passively to their own
depression.
(1) What ethical issues are relevant in this proposal?
(2) What are the possible consequences (costs and benefits) of this research for: (a) the subjects; (b) the
researchers; (c) humans; (d) society?
(3) What alternative methods exist for conducting this research? What are the ethical consequences of
these methods (see Step 2)? What are the ethical consequences for not doing this research?
(4) As an IACUC member, would you consent to this research? Would you ask for any modifications of the
research proposal?
5. One More Challenge Question
This brief proposal appeared as the first challenge question in previous editions of the textbook and is
reprinted here for instructors who would like to continue to use it for class discussion or as a possible
test question. Students are asked to read the proposal from the perspective of someone who is on an
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and to follow the steps in making ethical decisions we describe near
the end of Chapter 3. The proposal is presented separately on the following page (“Challenge Question:
Ethical Decision Making”) to facilitate photocopying. Possible points students will consider are
presented below.
19
Challenge Question: Ethical Decision Making
Assume you are a member of an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Besides yourself, the committee
includes a clinical psychologist, a social psychologist, a social worker, a philosopher, a Protestant
minister, a history professor, and a respected business executive in the community. The following is a
summary of a research proposal that has been submitted to the IRB for review. You are asked to
consider what questions you might want to ask the investigator and whether you would approve carrying
out the study at your institution in its present form, whether modification should be made before approval,
or whether the proposal should not be approved. (An actual research proposal submitted to an IRB would
include more details than we present here.)
Rationale Psychological conformity occurs when people accept the opinions or judgments of others in
the absence of significant reasons to do so or in the face of evidence to the contrary. Previous research
has investigated the conditions under which conformity is likely to occur and has shown, for example, that
conformity increases when people anticipate unpleasant events (e.g., shock) and when the pressure to
conform comes from individuals with whom the individuals identify. The proposed research examines
psychological conformity in the context of discussions about alcohol consumption among underage
students. The goal of the research is to identify factors that contribute to students’ willingness to attend
social events where alcohol is served to minors and to allow obviously intoxicated persons to drive an
automobile. This research seeks to investigate conformity in a natural setting and in circumstances where
unpleasant events (e.g., legal penalties, school suspension, injury, or even death) can be avoided by not
conforming to peer pressure.
Method The research will involve 36 students (ages 18-19) who volunteer to participate in a research
project investigating “beliefs and attitudes of today’s students.” Participants will be assigned to four–
person discussion groups. Each person in the group will be given the same 20 questions to answer;
however, they will be asked to discuss each question with members of the group before writing down their
answers. Four of the 20 questions deal with alcohol consumption by people under age 21 and with
possible actions that might be taken to reduce teenage drinking and driving. One member of the group
will be appointed discussion leader by the principal investigator. Unknown to the participants, they will be
assigned randomly to three different groups. In each group, there will be 0, 1, or 2 students who are
actually working for the principal investigator. Each of these “confederates” has received prior instructions
from the investigator regarding what to say during the group discussion of the critical questions about
underage drinking. (The use of confederates in psychological research is discussed in Chapter 4.)
Specifically, confederates have been asked to follow a script which presents the argument that the
majority of people who reach the legal driving age (16), and all individuals who are old enough (18) to
vote in national elections and serve in the armed forces, are old enough to make their own decisions
about drinking alcohol; moreover, because it is up to each individual to make this decision, other
individuals do not have the right to intervene if someone under the legal age chooses to drink alcohol.
Each of the confederates “admits” to drinking alcohol on at least two previous occasions. Thus, the
experimental manipulation involves 0, 1, or 2 persons in the four-person groups suggesting they do not
believe students have a responsibility to avoid situations where alcohol is served to minors or to intervene
when someone chooses to drink and drive. The effect of this argument on the written answers given by
the actual participants in this experiment will be evaluated. Moreover, audiotapes of the sessions will be
made without participants’ knowledge, and the contents of these audiotapes will be analyzed. Following
the experiment, the nature of the deception and the reasons for making audiotapes of the discussions will
be explained to the participants.