Class 5 Notes - Ethics in Psychology Flashcards
ethical psych research
Milgram’s obedience studies influenced (and spurred development of) policies regarding the rights of human subjects:
Differ by nation
- Poland still permits Milgram-like studies; in Canada not possible
Differ by research field
- Experimental economics generally disallows deception — must be stated explicitly
Canada – Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS)
milgram
obedience studies influenced (and spurred development of) policies regarding the rights of human subjects:
o Participants believed they shocked the confederate out of consciousness or to death; harmful?
o Debate about whether this was harmful — we have a problem concerning ethics
Canada – Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS)
- Research Ethics Board (REB) reviews all human subject research
Scientist; Scientist who specializes in that particular topic; Community member - not conducting science themselves
Package about the proposed study — either make recommendations or approve the proposal
All academic research, must be approved by a REB — must be included in the research paper which REB - Guide what is considered ethical, vs unethical
TCPS principles
- respect for persons
- beneficence
- justice
- Respect for persons
- Respecting autonomy or choice to participate or decline
Overview; risks and benefits of the study
Refuse participation - must be no punishment
Participants can stop participation at any point, as soon as they are uncomfortable — must be informed of that right - Who cannot consent? By law, cannot consent - ASSENT
Who cannot consent? By law, cannot consent - ASSENT
- Children: still in development (parent/guardian, confirm it is okay)
- Psychiatric patients: unclear whether they are in proper state of mind to give consent
- Prisoners: special ethics certifications, prisoners are subject to whims of authority figures of the prisons; may feel extra pressure to participate (warden)
- Economically vulnerable: desperate need for money for basic needs, getting 50$ will be very very compelling — might override your agency (immediate pressing need)
- Cognitively diminished: still must say “I want to participate,” another individual must consent to the participation — both need to provide affirmation
consent
Do people know what they are agreeing to?
What could go wrong? Do they know the risks?
Vast majority of FB psych experiments are done without ethics boards
o Academic research held to a stronger/higher standard compared to companies
FB 2014
IV: exposure to emotional expressions in ‘news feed’
a) Positive content reduced 40%
b) Content not manipulated, control
c) Negative content reduced 40%
DV: positivity of individuals’ posts indexed using LIWC [linguistic and inquiry word count software]
- % of all words in posts that were positive
- % of all words in posts that were negative
N = 689,003 profiles
Data passed from FB team to Kramer, Guillory, & Hancock (2014)
“This work was consistent with Facebook’s ‘Data Use Policy,’ to which all users agree prior to creating an account on Facebook, constituting informed consent for this research.”
Consent? Autonomy?
FB Consent? Autonomy?
o Embedded within the fine print: FB is allowed to conduct studies based on the data
o Assumption that this data/results would be kept internally within FB
o Now, it is being passed along, to psyc researchers who are publishing it
o Being held to that higher ethical principles?
o Does it deserve to be published in academic journals?
No
- The people who are participating, don’t know they are; they didn’t give informed consent
Yes
- They agreed to this based on the terms of the agreements when they created their FB account
Economically Vulnerable?
What are the challenges for informed consent?
- Choice to participate or decline
o Based on the idea of economic vulnerability: how much it means to that person
- What could go wrong?
o Is this economic incentive so strong, they do not feel as if they have a choice on whether they can agree to participate or not
- Beneficence (concern for welfare)
- Minimize risks w/ participation
- Maximize benefits to self and to society
- Protect sensitive data at all costs
Yilun + Kosinski (2017)
IV: profile picture on online dating sites
DV: binary prediction of gay vs straight
N = 30,000 participants (consent not explicitly obtained)
- “Unfortunately it isn’t feasible to get explicit permission for a study like this. I do take care to preserve individuals’ privacy”
- Researchers argued since this information is available to everyone, they didn’t have to obtain informed consent
Risk to participants?
• Risk to having your profile picture be apart of this database; having a machine estimate whether or not you are gay or straight
• What if you take that picture down? Going to live-on in this publication
Benefits to participants?
• Doesn’t seem like theres any benefits — the risks then, do not outweigh the benefits
Benefits to society?
• Country in which one may be persecuted or imprisoned
• Are they responsible for the potential use of this new scientific tool: governments, other investigative industries seeking to find out who is homosexual
• What do we gain? If theres nothing to be gained, should a researcher really be engaged in this type of study, when they have a standard to make meaningful research to benefit society.
- Justice
~ Fair distribution of research benefits + burdens [participants should represent those who would benefit from the results]
~ Examples
- Tuskegee Syphilis study - Moore + Tisdall (1940-50s)
- Tuskegee Syphilis study
´ 399 black Americans not treated for syphilis — researchers knew the severity of the disease
´ Outset of the study, good cures not developed
´ 1943, FDA approved penicillin for the treatment — was not given to the participants, wanted to study untreated progression
´ Black Americans put at unnecessary risk [risk]
´ Results assumed to generalize to White Americans [benefits]
- Moore + Tisdall (1940-50s)
´ Pre-packaged, cheap, form of nutrition — could be given to lots of people struggling with food insecurity
´ Pablum formulated; supplement for cereal
´ Tested Pablum infant cereal in First Nation communities [experimental group]
´ Control group:
* Denied proper nutrition * Denied emergency dental care
´ What does severe malnutrition look like when it is untreated vs when it is treated with the supplemental product we have created
´ Again, results assumed to generalize to those who were not expected to share the burden of research participation
• Violation of Justice
• FN communities forced to bear the trauma of the study, meanwhile it’s applications apply to everyone
