Controversies - Ethical Cost Of Conducting Research Flashcards
What are the subtopics the question can focus on
1) benefits to society and the economy
2) individual participants
3) potentially negative consequences for society
4) risk management techniques used by psychologists
Write down all the paragraphs you would use to answer a question on the subtopic ‘Benefits to society and the economy’
P: One benefit of conducting psychological research is that it helps develop effective treatments and determines whether they are worth government funding.
E: Pavlov’s research on classical conditioning (Pavlov’s dogs) laid the foundation for behaviorist psychology, showing how associations can be learned. This has been applied in aversion therapy to treat addictions. Research has demonstrated that aversion therapy can reduce substance use in addicts by creating negative associations with the addictive substance.
T: This benefit is useful because it allows governments to allocate funds to treatments that have empirical support, ensuring resources are spent effectively and helping individuals recover from debilitating conditions. The strength of this benefit is that it provides a scientific basis for treatment development, ensuring that interventions are effective rather than based on untested theories
C: However, aversion therapy has ethical concerns, as it often involves discomfort or distress for the participant. Furthermore, its effectiveness can be questioned due to high relapse rates, suggesting that psychological treatments may require additional methods (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy) for long-term success
P: Another benefit is that psychological research advances scientific methods, allowing us to gain insights that would not have been possible otherwise.
E: Lancaster’s research on brain organoids involved growing two mini-brains—one with schizophrenia and one without. This allowed researchers to identify developmental differences, providing insights into schizophrenia that would have been impossible using traditional methods.
T: This benefit is useful because it enables researchers to study neurological disorders at a cellular level without relying solely on post-mortem examinations or limited animal models. This contributes to the development of targeted treatments and a better understanding of brain disorders. The strength of this benefit is that it pushes scientific boundaries, allowing psychology to evolve as a discipline and make discoveries that improve mental health outcomes.
C: However, the ethical implications of creating and experimenting on brain organoids are still debated. Some argue that as these structures become more complex, they may develop a form of consciousness, raising moral concerns about whether they should be used for research. Additionally, findings from organoids may not fully translate to real human experiences, limiting generalizability.
P: A key benefit of psychological research is that it challenges unscientific beliefs and helps to reduce prejudice against certain groups.
E: Research into schizophrenia diagnoses has shown a disproportionate number of Afro-Caribbean individuals diagnosed with the disorder since the 1970s. Ineichman (1984) found they were more likely to be compulsorily admitted to psychiatric hospitals. However, Mahy et al. found no genetic predisposition to schizophrenia in Caribbean populations, suggesting that migration-related stress contributes to higher diagnosis rates. Harrison et al. (1998) found that even Afro-Caribbean children born in the UK had high schizophrenia rates, suggesting discrimination in psychiatry rather than a biological cause.
T: This benefit is useful because it highlights potential biases in mental health diagnoses, leading to reforms that ensure all groups receive fair treatment in psychiatric care. The strength of this benefit is that it challenges systemic discrimination, helping mental health services become more equitable and reducing the stigma surrounding mental illness in minority groups.
C: However, while this research suggests discrimination plays a role, alternative explanations exist. Socioeconomic factors, such as poverty and urban living conditions, also contribute to increased schizophrenia rates. This means that while discrimination is a possible factor, it may not be the sole cause of the overdiagnosis of schizophrenia in Afro-Caribbean individuals.
P: Psychological research also benefits society by influencing government policies, particularly in legal settings.
E: Loftus and Palmer’s research on eyewitness testimony demonstrated how leading questions can distort memory. Their findings helped reform how eyewitness evidence is treated in courtrooms, influencing legal policies and police interview techniques. The case of Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson exemplifies this issue—Thompson misidentified Cotton as her attacker, leading to wrongful imprisonment. DNA evidence later proved his innocence, highlighting the fallibility of memory.
T: This benefit is useful because it prevents wrongful convictions and ensures the justice system relies on more accurate evidence rather than unreliable witness testimony. The strength of this benefit is that it promotes fair trials and prevents miscarriages of justice, improving the legal system’s reliability.
C: However, some critics argue that while Loftus and Palmer’s findings highlight memory flaws, they were based on artificial laboratory experiments, which may not fully reflect real-life emotional and situational pressures of witnessing a crime. This raises questions about the ecological validity of their conclusions
Write down the paragraphs you would use to answer the subtopic ‘individual participants’
A significant ethical issue in psychological research is that researchers may become so focused on obtaining scientific results that they overlook the potential harm inflicted on participants. This was evident in Stanley Milgram’s (1963) obedience study, where participants, believing they were administering real electric shocks, displayed extreme emotional distress. Milgram reported that sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and even seizures occurred in response to the perceived pain of the confederate. One participant convulsed so violently that the experiment had to be stopped. Despite these visible signs of suffering, Milgram continued his research across multiple variations, ultimately finding that 65% of participants obeyed orders to administer the highest shock of 450 volts. Therefore, while Milgram’s study provided crucial insights into human obedience, it also exemplifies the ethical failure of prioritizing data collection over participant welfare. The distress caused was neither minor nor temporary—some participants reported feeling guilty for years, demonstrating long-term psychological harm. If research ignores the ethical costs to individuals, it risks undermining the fundamental purpose of psychology: to enhance human well-being rather than cause harm. Additionally, an overemphasis on results without ethical considerations may set a dangerous precedent, encouraging future researchers to justify harm in the name of scientific discovery. While it is undeniable that Milgram’s findings had far-reaching implications—helping to explain atrocities like those committed in Nazi Germany—it raises a crucial question: Should the pursuit of knowledge ever outweigh human welfare? If so, where should the line be drawn?
One of the strongest counterarguments to unethical research is that modern psychology is now governed by strict ethical guidelines, ensuring that participants are protected from undue harm. The British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Human Research Ethics mandates that researchers follow four key principles: respect, competence, responsibility, and integrity. These guidelines ensure that participants give informed consent, have the right to withdraw, are debriefed after participation, and are protected from physical and psychological harm. Ethical committees now review studies before they are approved, meaning that research like Milgram’s would likely not pass in contemporary society. Therefore, while past unethical research has shaped our understanding of human behavior, the existence of ethical guidelines today is a necessary safeguard against the exploitation of participants. By enforcing strict ethical protocols, the field of psychology ensures that participants are not treated as mere subjects but as individuals whose rights and well-being must be prioritized. Some critics argue that these guidelines can limit scientific progress, restricting studies that could yield valuable insights. However, ethical oversight does not prevent research from being conducted—it ensures that it is done responsibly. A balance must be struck between scientific curiosity and human dignity, and the introduction of modern ethical standards represents a shift towards more humane, but still effective, psychological research. The argument, therefore, is not about whether ethics stifle progress but about how ethics ensure that progress does not come at an unacceptable cost.
Despite ethical concerns, some argue that psychological research inherently involves some level of harm or discomfort and that this is sometimes justified by the value of the knowledge gained. A prime example is Watson and Rayner’s (1920) “Little Albert” experiment, in which a nine-month-old child was conditioned to fear a white rat through repeated pairings with a loud, frightening noise. This study provided groundbreaking evidence for classical conditioning in emotional responses, shaping our understanding of phobias. More importantly, it laid the foundation for modern behavioral therapies, including systematic desensitization and exposure therapy, which have helped millions overcome anxiety disorders. Therefore, while the study was ethically problematic—causing lasting distress to an infant who was never deconditioned—it also contributed significantly to psychological treatments that benefit countless individuals today. This raises the question: should short-term harm be acceptable if it leads to long-term societal benefit? If psychology is to be a scientific discipline, it must acknowledge that some degree of risk is unavoidable. If researchers avoid any possibility of discomfort, they may fail to investigate crucial psychological mechanisms. However, this argument also has its limits. The fact that Watson and Rayner failed to reverse Albert’s conditioned fear remains a glaring ethical flaw. Had they followed modern ethical principles, their study could have still been informative without inflicting unnecessary distress. Thus, the real challenge is not whether harm should ever be permitted in research but whether that harm is justified, minimal, and reversible
Regularly harming participants in psychological research does not only affect the individuals involved—it threatens the credibility and reputation of psychology as a discipline. If unethical practices become too frequent, psychology may struggle to be recognized as a legitimate and reliable science. A clear example of this issue is Philip Zimbardo’s (1971) Stanford Prison Experiment, which was intended to study the psychological effects of perceived power in a prison setting. The study had to be terminated after just six days—despite being planned for two weeks—because participants assigned as guards became excessively cruel, subjecting prisoners to psychological abuse, humiliation, and extreme stress. Some prisoners experienced severe emotional breakdowns, yet Zimbardo, acting as both researcher and prison superintendent, failed to intervene until an external observer raised ethical concerns. Therefore, if psychology regularly prioritizes research goals over ethical standards, it risks damaging its legitimacy as a science. Studies like Zimbardo’s, while insightful, create ethical controversies that cast doubt on the integrity of psychological research. If participants feel they are at risk of psychological harm, they may refuse to take part in future studies, limiting sample diversity and making findings less generalizable. Furthermore, the broader societal perception of psychology could suffer; if the public sees the field as exploitative or reckless, policymakers may impose stricter regulations, hindering scientific progress. While some argue that groundbreaking research requires taking risks, the long-term impact of ethical failures suggests otherwise—if findings are tainted by unethical practices, they are less likely to be respected, applied, or even published. For psychology to maintain credibility, it must balance scientific inquiry with moral responsibility, ensuring that knowledge is gained in a way that does not undermine the very principles of human dignity it seeks to understand
Write down the paragraphs you would use to answer the subtopic ‘potentially negative consequences for society’
P: The ethical issue of conducting research is that findings may be misinterpreted or misused to reinforce societal prejudices and discrimination.
E: Blumstein & Schwartz (1983) investigated sexual behaviors in long-term couples and found that 94% of gay men reported having sex with at least one person outside their relationship, compared to 22% of heterosexual wives. This study, despite being peer-reviewed, was socially sensitive because it contributed to harmful stereotypes about homosexual relationships being inherently unfaithful.
T: The weakness of conducting such research is that it can fuel discrimination and prejudice, reinforcing negative societal attitudes. Even if researchers do not intend for their findings to be used in this way, the media or policymakers might exploit the results to justify homophobia, showing the unintended negative consequences of psychological research.
P: Another ethical issue of conducting research is that findings may promote a deterministic view of human behavior, removing personal responsibility and leading to harmful societal implications.
E: Studies such as Commings et al. (who identified the A1 variant of the DRD1 gene linked to addiction) and Brunner et al. (who found the MAOA gene, or ‘warrior gene,’ linked to aggression and criminality) suggest that behaviors like addiction and criminality may have a genetic basis. This can lead to the belief that individuals have no control over these behaviors, reducing accountability.
T: The weakness of this research is that it may lead to genetic screening, where children with “unwanted” genes could be identified and even aborted, raising serious ethical concerns. Additionally, it can shift focus away from social and environmental factors such as poverty or racism, reinforcing existing inequalities instead of addressing their root causes
P: Psychological research can have negative societal consequences when its findings influence social policies in ways that reinforce stigma or limit individuals’ opportunities. One major concern is that research into mental health conditions can shape employment practices and treatment policies in ways that disadvantage those with diagnoses.
E: Rosenhan’s (1973) study, “Being Sane in Insane Places,” demonstrated how psychiatric labels can lead to long-term stigma. In this study, pseudo-patients with no actual mental illness were admitted to psychiatric hospitals after claiming to hear voices. Despite behaving normally, they were diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated accordingly, with hospital staff interpreting their actions through the lens of their diagnosis. This study highlighted how once labeled, individuals struggle to be seen beyond that label, which has broader implications for employment and healthcare policies. Employers may discriminate against applicants with a history of mental illness, assuming they are unreliable, while healthcare providers may prioritize cost-effective but less personalized treatment options, such as medication, rather than therapy or social support.
T: The weakness of such research is that it can lead to systemic discrimination against those with mental health conditions. If findings are misused to shape policies that reduce job opportunities or limit access to the most effective treatments, individuals may suffer further social exclusion. This demonstrates how psychological research, even when intended to improve understanding, can have unintended negative consequences for vulnerable groups in society.
P: Some psychological research has been used to justify existing societal inequalities, reinforcing systemic discrimination against marginalized groups. Studies that suggest traits such as intelligence or criminality have a genetic basis can be misinterpreted to argue that certain social groups are inherently inferior.
E: A historical example of this is Henry Goddard’s (1917) intelligence testing on immigrants arriving at Ellis Island. Using biased intelligence tests, he classified many immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe as “feebleminded,” contributing to the stereotype that these groups were intellectually inferior. This research had significant societal consequences, as it influenced the Immigration Act of 1924, which restricted immigration from these regions based on the false belief that their populations were genetically predisposed to lower intelligence. Similarly, modern genetic studies on crime, such as Brunner et al.’s discovery of the MAOA gene (linked to aggression), can be misused to justify racial disparities in incarceration rates. By suggesting that criminal behavior is biologically determined, these studies ignore the impact of systemic issues like poverty and discrimination, reinforcing harmful stereotypes.
T: The weakness of such research is that it provides “scientific credibility to the prevailing prejudice” (Sieber & Stanley, 1988). When psychological studies suggest that social inequalities are rooted in biology rather than systemic oppression, they can be exploited to justify racism, classism, and discriminatory policies. This highlights how research findings, even when scientifically valid, can be misapplied in ways that harm marginalized communities and reinforce social injustices.
Write down the paragraphs you would use to answer the subtopic ‘risk management techniques used by Psychologist’
P: The British Psychological Society (BPS) ethical guidelines, along with ethical committees, are essential for ensuring that psychological research is conducted ethically, minimizing harm to participants while maintaining scientific integrity. These guidelines establish clear professional standards that regulate research practices, preventing unethical studies from taking place.
E: The BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2021) includes four core principles: Respect, Competence, Integrity, and Responsibility. These principles ensure that researchers consider the dignity and rights of participants, work within their expertise, remain honest, and actively prevent harm. Additional guidelines, such as the Code of Human Research Ethics, provide even more specific regulations regarding informed consent, confidentiality, and risk minimization. Ethical oversight from Psychology Research Ethics Committees (PREC) further strengthens these regulations. Before a study is conducted, researchers must submit a proposal detailing potential risks and mitigation strategies. The committee then decides whether the study can proceed, needs amendments, or should be rejected entirely.
T: This system is highly effective because it ensures that only research meeting ethical standards is conducted. The frequent updates to the guidelines also mean that they remain relevant to modern psychological challenges, such as research involving social media or artificial intelligence. By enforcing strict ethical standards, these measures protect participants from undue harm, ensuring psychological research maintains public trust and credibility.
P: Despite past failures, ethical committees and guidelines continue to improve, making psychological research safer and more accountable. The strict ethical review process significantly reduces the likelihood of harmful research being approved, making modern studies far more ethically sound compared to historical examples.
E: Today’s BPS guidelines have become more detailed, covering specialized ethical concerns in areas such as internet-mediated research and vulnerable populations. Ethics committees also employ a cost-benefit analysis to assess whether the potential harm is justified by the study’s scientific value. Researchers must demonstrate that risks have been mitigated through pilot studies or participant debriefing. Additionally, ethics committees promote cultural sensitivity, ensuring that research follows ethical standards that align with diverse populations. Unlike in the past, there are now independent ethics boards and stricter review processes, reducing the risk of unethical practices slipping through the cracks.
T: This demonstrates that ethical regulations are not only effective but adaptive to modern challenges. Although some harmful studies have occurred in the past, they have contributed to the strengthening of ethical guidelines, ensuring that future research avoids similar mistakes. Without these committees and guidelines, psychology as a discipline would risk losing credibility, and public participation in research would likely decline due to ethical concerns.
P: While ethical guidelines aim to protect participants, they also restrict important psychological research by banning studies that may involve necessary ethical compromises, such as deception or temporary distress. This can prevent the discovery of valuable insights that could benefit society.
E: Watson and Rayner’s (1920) Little Albert experiment would not be permitted under modern ethical guidelines due to its failure to protect participants from harm. However, it provided crucial insights into classical conditioning and the development of phobias, which later informed behavioral therapies such as systematic desensitization and aversion therapy.
T: Ethical guidelines, while important, sometimes hinder scientific progress by prioritizing participant comfort over valuable discoveries. This raises a key ethical dilemma: should researchers be allowed to temporarily breach ethical guidelines if the potential benefits outweigh the risks? By strictly adhering to ethical principles, psychology may limit its ability to study real-world human behavior, which often involves stress, deception, or difficult situations. This suggests that ethical regulations, while necessary, should remain flexible enough to allow scientifically valuable but ethically complex research to proceed under controlled conditions.
P: Despite the presence of ethical committees and strict guidelines, one of their major flaws is that they cannot always predict the risks involved in psychological research. Human behavior is inherently unpredictable, meaning that even studies that seem ethically acceptable on paper can result in severe unforeseen harm once they are conducted. This limitation makes ethics committees and professional guidelines ineffective in fully protecting participants.
E: This was evident in Milgram’s (1963) obedience study, which received ethical approval at the time but led to severe distress among participants that was not anticipated beforehand. During the experiment, participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a confederate. The emotional reactions observed in participants were far more extreme than expected—some were seen trembling, sweating, digging their nails into their skin, and laughing nervously in distress. Most disturbingly, three participants experienced uncontrollable seizures, with one having such a violent episode that the experiment had to be stopped momentarily. This level of psychological harm was not predicted by Milgram or by any ethical review board at the time, demonstrating the failure of ethics committees to foresee how research could negatively impact participants.
T: This case highlights the inherent flaw in ethical risk management techniques—even when guidelines are followed, they cannot guarantee participant safety because researchers cannot always anticipate the psychological consequences of an experiment. Since human reactions vary, what may seem like an acceptable level of risk before a study begins can turn out to be far more harmful in practice. This suggests that ethical committees and professional guidelines, while well-intended, are not fully effective in preventing harm, as their decisions rely on incomplete information about how participants will respond in real-world conditions
