Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
20
LEARNING BY DOING RESEARCH
Throughout our text we strive to remind students of the importance of ethical issues in research as we
introduce them to research methods. We describe here two ways in which instructors can reinforce the
importance of ethical issues when students carry out or propose research projects in their methods course.
Appropriately, instructors will need to consider a risk/benefit analysis in considering the two suggestions we
make. Both suggestions are additions to research projects that are often assigned in research methods
courses. If instructors do make one or both of the additions we suggest, then there likely will be less time
devoted to the research projects themselves or to some other aspect of the course. We think it is worth
considering whether the potential benefits for students of doing these assignments outweighs the likely
costs.
1. Writing Informed Consent Forms
The purpose of this assignment is for students to gain experience writing an informed consent form. The
assignment works best in those research methods courses in which students participate in or conduct
an experiment.
When students are the experimenters, the informed consent form can be developed after the
experiment has been described to students but before any participants are tested. When students are
the participants in the experiment (and if an informed consent form is not used in the testing), it is better
to have students consider what an informed consent form could have “looked like” for their experiment.
Students can prepare the informed consent form working in small groups in class. Box 3.1 in the
textbook provides students with a list of the components of an informed consent form.
When the students will be the experimenters, the instructor could guide the entire class to a single
informed consent form based on the ideas developed in the small groups. The instructor could then
have the student experimenters use this form when they test participants.
When the students develop the informed consent form after they have been participants in the
experiment, each student could append the consent form developed in their small group and the
consent form could be graded as part of the evaluation of an APA research report the students write.
Whatever approach is taken to have students develop an informed consent form, the key of this
assignment is to encourage students to connect the APA ethical guidelines to the research they
conduct.
2. Writing IRB Proposals
The purpose of this assignment is for students to gain experience writing proposals for an Institutional
Review Board (IRB). The assignment fits most readily into courses in which students write a research
proposal.
For this assignment, students write an IRB proposal in addition to their research proposal. The
easiest way to structure the IRB proposal assignment is to use the IRB proposal form developed for
your institution. [This assignment includes the assignment of writing informed consent forms because
consent forms are generally required by IRBs.]
Students could submit the IRB proposal to the instructor prior to submitting the research proposal.
The instructor could review the proposal in the role of chairperson of the IRB. This approach more
closely mimics the IRB process; IRB review typically precedes submitting a research grant proposal.
Research proposals are often assigned at a very hectic time near the end of the term; it may be
more reasonable for students to submit the IRB proposal concurrently with their research proposal.
21
Final Comment
The goal of the two assignments described in this section is to help students appreciate the integral role
ethics play in research. Few of our research methods students will be entering careers in which they will be
writing informed consent forms or IRB proposals. As consumers of research, however, many of them will be
judging the value of research. Our students will be well served if we can help them view research as an
enterprise concerned with ethical principles.
INSTRUCTOR’S LECTURE/DISCUSSION AIDS
The following pages reproduce content from Chapter 3 and may be used to facilitate lecture or discussion.
1-2. Ethical Issues in Psychological Research: These two pages provide an overview of the ethical issues
discussed in Chapter 3.
3. Before Beginning: This page states that research proposals must be reviewed by IRBs or IACUCs
before research can begin.
4. Risk/Benefit Ratio: This page explains the subjective evaluation of the risks and benefits of research.
5. Risks in Research: This page identifies three different types of risk in psychological research.
6. Minimal Risk: This page defines minimal risk.
7. Minimal Risk: What Do You Think?: This page can be used to facilitate class discussion on the
circumstances in which research participants may be at risk.
8. Informed Consent: This page describes basic principles of informed consent.
9. Informed Consent: What Do You Think?: This page can be used to facilitate class discussion about
informed consent decisions.
10. Privacy: This page outlines the basic guidelines for establishing privacy.
11. Deception: This page describes the issue of using deception in research.
12. Pros and Cons of Deception: This page outlines the basic pros and cons of using deception in
psychological research.
13. Research with Animals: Basic principles associated with the use of animals in research are addressed
on this page.
14. Reporting Psychological Research: This page identifies important ethical issues concerning the report of
psychological research.
15. Example of Plagiarism and Correct Citation: This page demonstrates the difference between correct
citation and plagiarism.
16. Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues in Psychology: This page addresses the issues and steps
associated with ethical decision making.
22
Ethical Issues in Psychological Research
____________________________________________________________
Ethical Standards Researchers follow the standards identified in the
APA Ethics Code to protect the rights and welfare of
research participants.
Institutional Review Before research can begin, an IRB reviews the
Boards (IRBs) ethics of a research project.
Risk/Benefit Ratio Researchers may conduct a research project if the
benefits are greater than the risks.
Minimal Risk Minimal risk means that the harm or discomfort in a
research project is not greater than what may be
experienced in everyday life.
Confidentiality Participants’ risk of social injury (e.g., personal
information becoming public) is protected by making
their responses anonymous or confidential (i.e., by
using no identifying information).
Informed Consent Before agreeing to participate in research,
individuals learn about the nature of the research
task, any risks, and the ways in which their rights will
be protected.
Privacy Research participants have the right to decide how
their personal information is communicated to others.
Continued…
23
Ethical Issues in Psychological Research, continued
Deception Some projects may require researchers to withhold
information or misinform participants about aspects
of the research.
Debriefing After completing the study, researchers inform
participants about the research, remove any harmful
effects or misconceptions, and explain any
deception.
Use of Animals Researchers must treat animal subjects humanely
and protect their welfare.
Publication Credit Individuals who have made significant contributions
to a research project are identified as authors when
the findings are communicated to others
Plagiarism Plagiarism occurs when individuals present
substantial elements of another’s work or ideas as
their own.
24
Before Beginning a Research Project
Prior to conducting any study, the proposed research must be reviewed to
determine if it meets ethical standards.
• Institutional Review Board (IRB)
▪ Review research proposals
▪ Protect the rights and welfare of human participants
▪ At least 5 members with varying backgrounds and areas of expertise
▪ Scientists and nonscientists
▪ At least one person not affiliated with the institution
• Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
▪ Review research proposals involving animal subjects
▪ Ensure animals are treated humanely in research
▪ Review the animals’ living quarters
▪ Review training procedures for those who work with the animals
▪ At least one scientist, one veterinarian, and one person not affiliated
with the institution
25
Risk/Benefit Ratio
• A subjective evaluation of the costs and benefits of a research project to
▪ Participants
▪ Society
▪ Researcher and institution
• Major questions
▪ Is the research worth it?
▪ Are the benefits greater than the risks?
▪ Will the study produce valid and interpretable results?
• IRB and IACUC members strive for consensus in their subjective
evaluation of the risks and benefits of the research.
▪ No mathematical answers for the risk/benefit ratio
▪ Committee members can require changes to the research procedures
before approving the project.
26
Risks in Research
• Three different types of risk in psychological research
▪ Physical injury
▪ Psychological injury, including mental or emotional stress
o includes stress due to misconceptions about research
▪ Social injury, including embarrassment or other consequences when
the confidentiality of participants’ information is not maintained
• Protect participants from social risk by keeping responses confidential
▪ Remove any identifying information
▪ Report results in terms of statistical averages
• “Confidential” is not the same as “anonymous”
▪ Anonymous: participants do not provide any identifying information
27
Minimal Risk
• Harm or discomfort is not greater than what participants might experience
in their daily lives or during routine physical or psychological tests
• “At risk”: risks are considered more than minimal
▪ Ethical obligation to protect participants’ welfare
▪ Research that places participants at risk should not be carried out if
there are alternative, lower-risk methods.
28
Minimal Risk: What Do You Think?
____________________________________________________________
For each of these research situations, do you think only “minimal risk” is
present, or is more than minimal risk present? What safeguards might you
add to reduce participants’ risk?
1. College students complete an adjective checklist describing their current
mood. The researcher seeks to identify depressed students so they can
be included in a study examining cognitive deficits associated with
depression.
2. A psychologist administers a battery of achievement tests to elderly
adults in the dayroom at their nursing home. The psychologist seeks to
determine if there is a decline in mental functioning with advancing age.
3. Students in a psychology research methods class see another student
enter their classroom in the middle of the class period, speak loudly and
angrily with the instructor, and then leave. As part of a study of
eyewitness behavior, the students are then asked to describe the
intruder.
4. A researcher recruits students from introductory psychology classes to
participate in a study of the effects of alcohol on cognitive functioning.
The experiment requires that some students drink 2 ounces of alcohol
(mixed with orange juice) before playing a computer game.
29
Informed Consent
• Research experience is a social contract
▪ Informed consent procedure
▪ Make clear the nature of the research (what participants will do in the
research) and any possible risks
▪ “At risk”: written informed consent is essential
▪ Describe all aspects of the research that might influence decision to
participate
▪ Allow to withdraw consent at any time without penalties
▪ No pressure to participate in research
• Informed consent must be obtained from legal guardians when individuals
are not able to provide consent (e.g., children, mentally impaired
individuals).
▪ Individuals unable to provide legal consent must provide their assent
to participation.
• Observations of public behavior: informed consent not necessary
30
Informed Consent: What Do You Think?
____________________________________________________________
Consider the following situations and decide whether you think participants’
informed consent should be required. To what extent do these situations
reflect public or private behavior?
1. In a study of drinking behavior of college students, an undergraduate
working for a faculty member attends a fraternity party and records the
amount consumed by other students at the party.
2. As part of a study of the gay community, a gay researcher joins a gay
baseball team with the goal of recording behaviors of participants in the
context of team competition during the season. (All games are played
outdoors and may be watched by the public.)
3. Public bathroom behavior (e.g., flushing, hand washing, littering, writing
graffiti, etc.) of men and women is observed by male and female
researchers concealed in the stalls of the respective washrooms.
4. A graduate student investigates cheating behaviors of college students by
concealing himself in a projection booth in an auditorium during an exam.
From his vantage point he can see with the aid of binoculars the
movements of most students. He records head movements, switching
papers, passing notes, use of cell phones, texting, and other suspicious
exam behaviors.
31
Privacy
• The right of individuals to decide how information about them is
communicated to others
• Researchers should describe the ways in which participants’ information
will be protected and kept confidential.
• Three major dimensions should be considered when trying to decide
whether people’s behavior is public or private:
▪ Sensitivity of the information
▪ Setting of the information
▪ Method of disseminating the information
32
Deception
• When information is withheld or when participants are intentionally
misinformed about an aspect of the research
• Deceiving people for the purpose of getting them to participate in a
research project is always unethical.
• Deception is justified only
▪ When the study is very important
▪ No other methods for conducting the research are available
▪ Deception would not influence individuals’ decision to participate in the
research
• When deception is used, the researcher must
▪ Inform participants after the research the reasons for the deception
▪ Discuss any misconceptions they may have
▪ Remove any harmful effects of the deception
▪ This process is called debriefing.
33
Pros and Cons of Deception
• Pros: Why do researchers deceive?
Deception allows
▪ Researchers to study individuals’ natural behavior
▪ Opportunities to investigate behaviors and mental processes not easily
studied using nondeceptive methods
• Cons: Why should we not deceive?
Deception
▪ Contradicts the principle of informed consent
▪ Establishes a relationship between researcher and participant that is
not open and honest
▪ May make individuals suspicious about research and psychology
34
Research with Animals
• Controversial question: Should animals be used in research?
• APA Ethical Standards and IACUCs:
▪ Ethically obligation to look out for animal subjects’ welfare and to treat
them humanely
▪ Any pain, discomfort, or death must be justified by potential scientific,
educational, or applied goals.
35
Reporting Psychological Research
• Researchers communicate their research findings
▪ In peer-reviewed scientific journals
▪ Scientific conferences, meetings
▪ The APA Code of Ethics provides guidelines for this process.
• Publication credit
▪ Fair acknowledgment of those who contribute to a research project
▪ Authorship should be based on the scholarly importance of individuals’
contributions
• Plagiarism
▪ Don’t present substantial portions or elements of another’s work as
your own.
▪ “Substantial” doesn’t refer simply to the number of words
▪ An important idea or concept might involve only a couple of words–if
it’s someone else’s idea, it must be cited correctly.
▪ Ignorance and sloppiness are not legitimate excuses.
▪ Cut-and-paste from the Internet is also plagiarism.
▪ Cite the sources of the ideas you present with quotation marks,
citation, and page number when you use exact words.
▪ Cite the sources of the ideas you present with a citation when you
paraphrase.
36
Example of Plagiarism and Correct Citation
• Actual Text (An Example of a Correctly Cited Direct Quote)
“Informed by developments in case law, the police use various methods of
interrogation–including the presentation of false evidence (e.g., fake
polygraph, fingerprints, or other forensic test results; staged eyewitness
identifications), appeals to God and religion, feigned friendship, and the use
of prison informants” (Kassin & Kiechel, 1996, p. 125).
• Example of Plagiarism (No Citation Accompanying Paraphrased Material)
Research investigations of deceptive interrogation methods to extract
confessions are important because police use false evidence (e.g., fake test
results) and false witnesses when interrogating suspects. Interrogators also
pressure suspects by pretending to be their friend.
• Paraphrased Material with Correct Citation
Research investigations of deceptive interrogation methods to extract
confessions are important because police use false evidence (e.g., fake test
results) and false witnesses when interrogating suspects (Kassin & Kiechel,
1996). Kassin and Kiechel also state that interrogators pressure suspects by
pretending to be their friend.
37
Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues in Psychology
• How do we decide whether a proposed research study is ethical?
▪ What if people disagree? (they do)
▪ Is there a right answer? (often, no)
• The best we can do is to follow steps for making ethical decisions.
1. Find out all the facts of the situation.
(procedures, who will participate, etc.)
2. Identify the relevant ethical issues.
(e.g., risk, informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, deception,
debriefing)
3. Decide what is at stake for all parties involved.
(e.g., participants, researchers, institutions, society)
4. Identify alternative methods or procedures.
Discuss practical constraints, consequences, and ethical implications
of each alternative.
5. Decide on the action to be taken.
Judge the “correctness” of the decision in terms of the process that
was followed, not whether the decision makes the researcher happy.
