Ethics

Question 1

Origins (EG)

Answer 1

• ethics established after unethical research
• TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS (1932-72); 400 African-American men infected; not informed/given treatment; aim to observe syphilis effects
• 128 died; 40 infected wives; 19 children born w/congenital syphilis
• NAZI EXPERIMENTS; Josef Mengele’s used 1500+ twin kids; looked at hypothermia/drinking sea water/mustard gas/bombs/mass sterilisation
• MILGRAM (1963); focus on obedience; pps gave shocks to actors; caused nervous tension/stuttering/emotional disturbance/hysterical laughter/seizures; impossible study today
• ZIMBARDO’S STANDFORD PRISON (1973); guards and prisoners; social roles affecting behaviour; Zimbardo played chief warden; terminated early due to severe suffering.

Question 2

APAP: A

Answer 2

A) BENEFICENCE/NON-MALEFICENCE: do no harm; benefit pps; safeguarding welfare of all involved/affected/animals.

Question 3

APAP: B

Answer 3

B) FIDELITY/RESPONSIBILITY: relationships of trust; awareness of professional/scientific responsibility to society/specific communities

Question 4

APAP: C

Answer 4

C) INTEGRITY: promoting accuracy/honesty/truthfulness of science/teaching/practice

Question 5

APAP: D

Answer 5

D) JUSTICE: fairness/justice entitles all to benefit from psych contributions w/equal quality from procedures/services provided

Question 6

APAP: E

Answer 6

E) RESPECT FOR PEOPLE’S RIGHTS/DIGNITY: individuals rights to privacy/confidentiality/self-determination

Question 7

BPS Principles

Answer 7

• RESPECT; valuing dignity/worth of all, focusing on privacy/self-determination
• COMPETENCE; value of continued development/maintenance of standards in prof work
• RESPONSIBILITY; value of responsibility to clients/public/profession of science; avoiding harm/preventing misuse of contributions
• INTEGRITY; value of honesty/accuracy/clarity/fairness of personal interactions

Question 8

Participant Relations

Answer 8

• specific practices generating ethical concerns
• responsibility of protecting pps physically/mentally; shouldn’t include risks not encountered daily; best judges are usually from target pop
• specific standards/procedures for animals/the vulnerable (ie. elderly/kids/mentally ill) required
• GENERAL DATA PROTEECTION REGULATIONS (GDPR)
• INFORMED CONSENT
• DECEPTION
• DEBRIFING
• ETHICAL APPROVAL

Question 9

PR: Informed Consent

Answer 9

• consent MUST be unambiguous/freely given/informed/specific/demonstrable/categorically explicit w/o silence/lack of opt out
• important for “special groups” (EU General Data Protection Regulation) (ie. race/ethnicity/politics/religion/philosophy/trade/biometric data/health/sexual orientation
• implicit consent must NEVER be assumed

Question 10

PR: Deception

Answer 10

• “withholding information/misleading participants; intentional transmission of messages to foster false belief/interpretation in believer”
• some psychological processes impossible to study w/o it but must be justified in study proportions; alternatives w/o deception should be explored; pps should be provided w/more info to replace it early on; consultation of deception effect necessary
• debriefing should be sufficient to prevent harmful side-effects though it itself isn’t enough to justify unethical work; contact info must be provided

Question 11

PR: Debriefing

Answer 11

• written statement/research purpose given clearly; ESSENTIAL w/deception
• include contact info of primary investigator (ie. email); ask if pps have questions/need for info in the future

Question 12

Ethics Approval

Answer 12

• all research given approval by Psychology Research Ethics Committee before data collection starts
• TRACK A: non-interventionist methods (observational); no ethical concerns (ie. topic isn’t sensitive); reviewed by Chair of PREC/1 committee
• TRACK B: ethically sensitive method/subject; reviewed by PREC Chair AND 1 committee; substantial documentation required

Question 13

Alternative Ethics

Answer 13

• ethics may be research related/concealed
• this included beneficial treatment being withheld; legality doesn’t equal ethics
• HANDLING DATA
• WRITING RESEARCH PAPERS
• RESEARCHER-RESEARCHER RELATIONS
• PRACTITIONER-CLIENT RELATIONS
• RESEARCHER-SOCIETY RELATIONS

Question 14

AE: Handling Data

Answer 14

• DIEDERIK STAPEL; Deutsch psychologist; fabricated data on huge scale; 55 papers retracted since 2011; damaging to colleagues who were unaware
• questionable research practices isn’t really fraud but still unethical as prioritises favour for researcher
• these include: not reporting all dependant measures/conditions; collecting data after not STATSIG; stopping collection after desired outcome; selecting studies; excluding significant studies; claiming prediction for strange finding; claiming results unaffected by demographics; trying to replicate high-profile effects/journal policies

Question 15

AE: Writing Research Papers

Answer 15

• authorship should reflect overarching contribution to paper
• unacceptable to: include others if they didn’t contribute; excluding actual contributors; claiming primary researcher due to age/experience regardless of contribution

Question 16

AE: Researcher-Researcher Relations

Answer 16

• collabs/research supervisions usually include communication of various powers/statuses; vital that these are appropriate/respectful/professional

Question 17

AE: Practitioner-Client Relations

Answer 17

• maintaining appropriate/professional relations; defined roles (ie. advocate/court witness); should only practice in personal areas of expertise

Question 18

AE: Researcher-Society Relations

Answer 18

• MILGRAM; should these ethics in particular be evaluated; pp wrote years later after refusing Vietnam War; “grateful” to contribution to great human problem; glad to find himself acting differently after the study by refusing to serve; gave thanks for social contribution
• difficult to view the study and not see its social importance on the maintenance of blind obedience despite clear ethical issues; arguably morally significant/vital research; were ethics necessary sacrifice?