Ch. 3 Flashcards
Ethics
The branch of philosophy that is concerned with morality—what it means to behave morally and how people can achieve that goal.
general moral principles that apply to scientific research
- weighing risks against benefits
- acting responsibly and with integrity
- seeking justice
- respecting people’s rights and dignity.
groups of people that are affected by scientific research
- the research participants
- the scientific community
- society more generally
Weighing Risks Against Benefits
Scientific research in psychology can be ethical only if its risks are outweighed by its benefits.
Not necessarily easy
Risks to research participants:
- Treatment might fail to help or even be harmful
- A procedure might result in physical or psychological harm
- Their right to privacy might be violated.
Benefits to research participants:
- receiving a helpful treatment
- learning about psychology
- experiencing the satisfaction of contributing to scientific knowledge
- receiving money or course credit for participating.
Risks to science:
- if a research question is uninteresting or a study is poorly designed, then the time, money, and effort spent on that research could have been spent on more productive research.
Risks to society:
- Research results could be misunderstood or misapplied with harmful consequences
Benefits to science and society:
- it advances scientific knowledge and can contribute to the welfare of society
Acting Responsibly and With Integrity
This means carrying out their research in a thorough and competent manner, meeting their professional obligations, and being truthful.
Acting with integrity is important because it promotes trust, which is an essential element of all effective human relationships.
Participants must be able to trust that researchers are being honest with them (e.g., about what the study involves), will keep their promises (e.g., to maintain confidentiality), and will carry out their research in ways that maximize benefits and minimize risk.
Scientific community and society must also be able to trust that researchers have conducted their research thoroughly and competently and that they have reported on it honestly.
Acting Responsibly and With Integrity and the use of deception
Some research questions are difficult or impossible to answer without deceiving research participants.
Thus acting with integrity can conflict with doing research that advances scientific knowledge and benefits society.
Seeking Justice
Researchers must conduct their research in a just manner.
They should treat their participants fairly, for example, by giving them adequate compensation for their participation and making sure that benefits and risks are distributed across all participants.
For example, in a study of a new and potentially beneficial psychotherapy, some participants might receive the psychotherapy while others serve as a control group that receives no treatment. If the psychotherapy turns out to be effective, it would be fair to offer it to participants in the control group when the study ends.
At a broader societal level, members of some groups have historically faced more than their fair share of the risks of scientific research, including people who are institutionalized, are disabled, or belong to racial or ethnic minorities.
Respecting People’s Rights and Dignity
Researchers must respect people’s rights and dignity as human beings.
One element of this is respecting their autonomy—their right to make their own choices and take their own actions free from coercion.
Of fundamental importance here is the concept of informed consent.
This means that researchers obtain and document people’s agreement to participate in a study after having informed them of everything that might reasonably be expected to affect their decision.
Another element of respecting people’s rights and dignity is respecting their privacy—their right to decide what information about them is shared with others.
This means that researchers must maintain confidentiality, which is essentially an agreement not to disclose participants’ personal information without their consent or some appropriate legal authorization.
Even more ideally participants can maintain anonymity, which is when their name and other personally identifiable information is not collected at all
Unavoidable Ethical Conflict
there is little, if any, psychological research that is completely risk-free, there will almost always be a conflict between risks and benefits.
Research that is beneficial to one group (e.g., the scientific community) can be harmful to another (e.g., the research participants), creating especially difficult tradeoffs.
We have also seen that being completely truthful with research participants can make it difficult or impossible to conduct scientifically valid studies on important questions.
Although it may not be possible to eliminate ethical conflict completely, it is possible to deal with it in responsible and constructive ways.
In general, this means thoroughly and carefully thinking through the ethical issues that are raised, minimizing the risks, and weighing the risks against the benefits.
It also means being able to explain one’s ethical decisions to others, seeking feedback on them, and ultimately taking responsibility for them.
Nuremberg Code
A set of 10 ethical principles for research written in 1947 in conjunction with the Nuremberg trials of Nazi physicians accused of war crimes against prisoners in concentration camps.
One of the earliest ethics codes
was particularly clear about the importance of carefully weighing risks against benefits and the need for informed consent.
The Declaration of Helsinki
An ethics code that was created by the World Medical Council in 1964.
Among the standards that it added to the Nuremberg Code was that research with human participants should be based on a written protocol—a detailed description of the research—that is reviewed by an independent committee.
The Declaration of Helsinki has been revised several times, most recently in 2004.
The Belmont Report
A set of federal guidelines written in 1978 as a response to the abuses of the Tuskegee study that recognize three important principles in research with humans: justice, respect for persons, and beneficience, and that formed the basis for federal regulations applied to research.
justice: The importance of conducting research in a way that distributes risks and benefits fairly across different groups at the societal level.
respect for persons: One of the Belmont report principles that emphasizes the need for participants to exercise autonomy and protection for those with reduced autonomy, often through informed consent.
beneficence: Underscores the importance of maximizing the benefits of research while minimizing harms to participants and society.
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects
A set of laws based on the Belmont Report that apply to research conducted, supported, or regulated by the federal government.
An extremely important part of these regulations is that universities, hospitals, and other institutions that receive support from the federal government must establish an institutional review board (IRB)
The federal regulations also distinguish research that poses three levels of risk.
institutional review board (IRB)
A committee that is responsible for reviewing research protocols for potential ethical problems.
An IRB must consist of at least five people with varying backgrounds, including members of different professions, scientists and nonscientists, men and women, and at least one person not otherwise affiliated with the institution.
The IRB helps to make sure that the risks of the proposed research are minimized, the benefits outweigh the risks, the research is carried out in a fair manner, and the informed consent procedure is adequate.
Exempt research
Research on the effectiveness of normal educational activities, the use of standard psychological measures and surveys of a nonsensitive nature that are administered in a way that maintains confidentiality, and research using existing data from public sources.
lowest level or risk
It is called exempt because once approved, it is exempt from regular, continuous review.
Expedited research
Research reviewed by the IRB that is not anonymous and/or may involve potentially stigmatizing information, or invasive or uncomfortable procedures, but exposes participants to risks that are no greater than minimal risk (risks encountered by healthy people in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations).
somewhat higher risk than exempt
Expedited review is done by by one member of the IRB or by a separate committee under the authority of the IRB that can only approve minimal risk research
greater than minimal risk research
Research that poses greater than minimal risk to participants and must be reviewed by the full board of IRB members.
APA Ethics Code
Stands for the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. It was first published in 1953 and includes about 150 specific ethical standards that psychologists and their students are expected to follow.
revised most recently in 2010
Much of the APA Ethics Code concerns the clinical practice of psychology—advertising one’s services, setting and collecting fees, having personal relationships with clients, and so on.
the most relevant part is Standard 8: Research and Publication
APA Ethics Code Standard 8: Research and Publication
Standards 8.02 to 8.05 are about informed consent.
Again, informed consent means obtaining and documenting people’s agreement to participate in a study, having informed them of everything that might reasonably be expected to affect their decision.
This includes details of the procedure, the risks and benefits of the research, the fact that they have the right to decline to participate or to withdraw from the study, the consequences of doing so, and any legal limits to confidentiality.
consent form
The process of obtaining informed consent by having the participants read and sign the form.
many participants do not actually read consent forms or read them but do not understand them.
For example, participants often mistake consent forms for legal documents and mistakenly believe that by signing them they give up their right to sue the researcher
Even with competent adults, therefore, it is good practice to tell participants about the risks and benefits, demonstrate the procedure, ask them if they have questions, and remind them of their right to withdraw at any time—in addition to having them read and sign a consent form.
Note also that there are situations in which informed consent is not necessary.
These include situations in which the research is not expected to cause any harm and the procedure is straightforward or the study is conducted in the context of people’s ordinary activities.
Deception
Misinforming participants about the purpose of a study, using confederates, using phony equipment like Milgram’s shock generator, and presenting participants with false feedback about their performance (e.g., telling them they did poorly on a test when they actually did well).
Also includes not informing participants of the full design or true purpose of the research even if they are not actively misinformed.
Some researchers have argued that deception of research participants is rarely if ever ethically justified.
Among their arguments are that it prevents participants from giving truly informed consent, fails to respect their dignity as human beings, has the potential to upset them, makes them distrustful and therefore less honest in their responding, and damages the reputation of researchers in the field
APA Ethics Code Deception
takes a more moderate approach—allowing deception when the benefits of the study outweigh the risks, participants cannot reasonably be expected to be harmed, the research question cannot be answered without the use of deception, and participants are informed about the deception as soon as possible.
This approach acknowledges that not all forms of deception are equally bad.
Standard 8.08 is about debriefing
This is the process of informing research participants as soon as possible of the purpose of the study, revealing any deception, and correcting any other misconceptions they might have as a result of participating.
involves minimizing harm that might have occurred.
Debriefing would be the time to return participants’ moods to normal by having them think happy thoughts, watch a happy video, or listen to happy music.
Nonhuman Animal Subjects
Standard 8.09 is about the humane treatment and care of nonhuman animal subjects.
Clearly, nonhuman animals are incapable of giving informed consent.
Yet they can be subjected to numerous procedures that are likely to cause them suffering.
They can be confined, deprived of food and water, subjected to pain, operated on, and ultimately euthanized.
Others point out that psychological research on nonhuman animals has resulted in many important benefits to humans, including the development of behavioral therapies for many disorders, more effective pain control methods, and antipsychotic drugs.
It has also resulted in benefits to nonhuman animals, including alternatives to shooting and poisoning as means of controlling them.
APA acknowledges that the benefits of research on nonhuman animals can outweigh the costs, in which case it is ethically acceptable.
However, researchers must use alternative methods when they can.
When they cannot, they must acquire and care for their subjects humanely and minimize the harm to them.
Scholarly Integrity
Standards 8.10 to 8.15 are about scholarly integrity.
researchers must not fabricate data or plagiarize.
Plagiarism means using others’ words or ideas without proper acknowledgment.
Proper acknowledgment generally means indicating direct quotations with quotation marks and providing a citation to the source of any quotation or idea used.
Self-plagiarism is also considered unethical and refers to publishing the same material more than once.
In other words, researchers should not borrow prior phrasing from their other published works, just as students should not submit the same work to more than one class.
remaining standards make some less obvious but equally important points.
Researchers should not publish the same data a second time as though it were new, they should share their data with other researchers, and as peer reviewers, they should keep the unpublished research they review confidential.
Note that the authors’ names on published research—and the order in which those names appear—should reflect the importance of each person’s contribution to the research.
It would be unethical, for example, to include as an author someone who had made only minor contributions to the research (e.g., analyzing some of the data) or for a faculty member to make himself or herself the first author on research that was largely conducted by a student.
Know and Accept Your Ethical Responsibilities
“Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.”
This is why the very first thing that you must do as a new researcher is to know and accept your ethical responsibilities.
At a minimum, this means reading and understanding the relevant sections of the APA Ethics Code, distinguishing minimal risk from at-risk research, and knowing the specific policies and procedures of your institution—including how to prepare and submit a research protocol for institutional review board (IRB) review.
If you are conducting research as a course requirement, there may be specific course standards, policies, and procedures.
If any standard, policy, or procedure is unclear—or you are unsure what to do about an ethical issue that arises—you must seek clarification.
You can do this by reviewing the relevant ethics codes, reading about how similar issues have been resolved by others, or consulting with more experienced researchers, your IRB, or your course instructor.
Identify and Minimize Risks
Start by listing all the risks, including risks of physical and psychological harm and violations of confidentiality.
Remember that it is easy for researchers to see risks as less serious than participants do or even to overlook them completely.
Once you have identified the risks, you can often reduce or eliminate many of them.
One way is to modify the research design.
Second way to minimize risks is to use a pre-screening: A way to minimize risks in a study and to identify and eliminate participants who are at high risk.
Third way to minimize risks is to take active steps to maintain confidentiality.
You should keep signed consent forms separately from any data that you collect and in such a way that no individual’s name can be linked to their data.
Identify and Minimize Deception
Remember that deception can take a variety of forms, not all of which involve actively misleading participants.
It is also deceptive to allow participants to make incorrect assumptions (e.g., about what will be on a “memory test”) or simply withhold information about the full design or purpose of the study.
It is best to identify and minimize all forms of deception.
Remember that according to the APA Ethics Code, deception is ethically acceptable only if there is no way to answer your research question without it.
In general, it is considered acceptable to wait until debriefing before you reveal your research question as long as you describe the procedure, risks, and benefits during the informed consent process.
Weigh the Risks Against the Benefits
Once the risks of the research have been identified and minimized, you need to weigh them against the benefits.
This requires identifying all the benefits.
Remember to consider benefits to the research participants, to science, and to society.
If the research poses minimal risk—no more than in people’s daily lives or routine physical or psychological examinations—then even a small benefit to participants, science, or society is generally considered enough to justify it.
If it poses more than minimal risk, then there should be more benefits.
If the research has the potential to upset some participants, for example, then it becomes more important that the study is well designed and can answer a scientifically interesting research question or have clear practical implications.
In general, psychological research that has the potential to cause harm that is more than minor or lasts for more than a short time is rarely considered justified by its benefits.
Create Informed Consent and Debriefing Procedures
Once you have settled on a research design, you need to create your informed consent and debriefing procedures.
Start by deciding whether informed consent is necessary according to APA Standard 8.05.
If informed consent is necessary, there are several things you should do.
First, when you recruit participants—whether it is through word of mouth, posted advertisements, or a participant pool—provide them with as much information about the study as you can.
This will allow those who might find the study objectionable to avoid it.
Second, prepare a script or set of “talking points” to help you explain the study to your participants in simple everyday language.
This should include a description of the procedure, the risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time.
Third, create an informed consent form that covers all the points in Standard 8.02a that participants can read and sign after you have described the study to them.
Remember that if appropriate, both the oral and written parts of the informed consent process should include the fact that you are keeping some information about the design or purpose of the study from them but that you will reveal it during debriefing.
Debriefing is similar to informed consent in that you cannot necessarily expect participants to read and understand written debriefing forms.
So again it is best to write a script or set of talking points with the goal of being able to explain the study in simple, everyday language.
During the debriefing, you should reveal the research question and full design of the study.
If you deceived your participants, you should reveal this as soon as possible, apologize for the deception, explain why it was necessary, and correct any misconceptions that participants might have as a result.
Debriefing is also a good time to provide additional benefits to research participants by giving them relevant practical information or referrals to other sources of help.
schedule plenty of time for the informed consent and debriefing processes. They cannot be effective if you have to rush through them.
Get Approval
The next step is to get institutional approval for your research based on the specific policies and procedures at your institution or for your course.
This will generally require writing a protocol that describes the purpose of the study, the research design and procedure, the risks and benefits, the steps taken to minimize risks, and the informed consent and debriefing procedures.
Do not think of the institutional approval process as merely an obstacle to overcome but as an opportunity to think through the ethics of your research and to consult with others who are likely to have more experience or different perspectives than you.
If the IRB has questions or concerns about your research, address them promptly and in good faith.
This might even mean making further modifications to your research design and procedure before resubmitting your protocol.
Follow Through
Your concern with ethics should not end when your study receives institutional approval.
It now becomes important to stick to the protocol you submitted or to seek additional approval for anything other than a minor change.
During the research, you should monitor your participants for unanticipated reactions and seek feedback from them during debriefing.
Be alert also for potential violations of confidentiality.
Keep the consent forms and the data safe and separate from each other and make sure that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, has access to any participant’s personal information.
Finally, you must maintain your integrity through the publication process and beyond.
Address publication credit—who will be authors on the research and the order of authors—with your collaborators early and avoid plagiarism in your writing.
Remember that your scientific goal is to learn about the way the world actually is and that your scientific duty is to report on your results honestly and accurately.
