ethics

Question 1

milgrams 1960s experiment

Answer 1

An experiment into obedience.
Would a normal person carry out horrific acts just because they were “following orders”?
Experimenter would issue simple commands to continue and very few subjects would refuse and stop.
About 60% of subjects gave the full level of shock but many demonstrated signs of severe stress.
he was criticised for exposing his volunteers to extreme levels of stress, for producing what could be long-term adverse effects on their self esteem and dignity and because of the degree of perception involved for destroying their trust in psychologists (Baumrid 1964).

Question 2

implications milgram

Answer 2

• People can do terrible things in the name of science.
  
  • “Teachers” in Milgram’s experiments.
    Milgram himself.

Question 3

zimbardos stanford prison experiment

Answer 3

• Volunteers randomly assigned roles of inmates or guards.
• Zimbardo took role of governor.
• Aimed to show that prisons always led to dehumanisation of inmates.
• Bullying and intimidation quickly broke out.
• Inmates were dehumanised.
• Experiment had to be ended early.
  Zimbardo said that it should never be repeated.

Question 4

BPS code of conduct

Answer 4

• Covers both research and clinical practice
• Based on ethical principles of:
  
  • Respect
    ○ Privacy, power, individual
  • Competence
    ○ Knowledge of own limits,
    ○ caution making claims
  • Responsibility
    ○ Accountability, responsibility
  • Integrity
    Honesty, fairness, addressing misconduct

Question 5

BPS practice guidelines

Answer 5

• Legal framework for psychological work
• Cycle of professional practice
• Reflective practice
• Development, training and leadership

HCPC + BPS
(Health Care Professional Council)

Question 6

protected titles

Answer 6

• Practitioner psychologist
  • Registered psychologist
  • Clinical psychologist
  • Forensic psychologist
  • Counselling psychologist
  • Health psychologist
  • Educational psychologist
  • Occupational psychologist

Sport and exercise psychologist

Question 7

HCPC titles not bps

Answer 7

• Art psychotherapist
• Art therapist
• Dramatherapist
• Music therapist
  Language therapist

Question 8

BPS code of human research ethics

Answer 8

• Introduced in 1985 - before researchers could do what they wanted
• Principles
  
  • Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals, groups and communities
    ○ Participants rather than subjects
  • Scientific integrity
  • Social responsibility
  • Maximising benefit and minimising harm

Respect: Unbiased language
(See also APA guidelines)
* Be specific
* “75 years or older” rather than “elder”
* “Person with a diagnosis of X”
* “Gay men and lesbians” rather than “gay”
* Avoid labels (Put the person first)
* “People with bulimia” rather than “Bulimics”
* Avoid inferred hierarchy or normality
* “typically developing” rather than “normal”
“non-white”

Question 9

unbiased racial terms

Answer 9

• Does race or ethnicity matter?
• If it does, describe it in most appropriate way relevant for use.
• Use self-identified term where possible.
• Terms to avoid
  
  • “Caucasian” Better to use “European”
  • “Black British and Asian British” – not parallel
  • “Japanese” – the nationality or the ethnicity
    “Asians” – Ok if you really mean anyone from Asian but typically people can be more specific.

Question 10

BPS guidelines to follow at all times

Answer 10

1. Ethical approval
   
   • Required for every study
2. Consent
   
   • Participants should be informed of all objectives whenever possible. All aspects influencing willingness to participate need to be given.
3. Deception
   
   • This is unacceptable if participants are typically likely to object/show unease once debriefed
4. Debriefing
   
   • All information for complete understanding of the study is required
5. Withdrawal
   
   • Right to withdraw at any point without implication
6. Confidentiality
   Information will be treated confidentially unless discussed beforehand

Question 11

why get ethical approval

Answer 11

• It is not a legal requirement.
• Required if you are a member of BPS.
• ESRC (research funder) requires all research in the university to be approved.
• The university requires it.
  Journals require it.

Question 12

ethical approval within the school

Answer 12

• All studies within the school are reviewed – proceed only with approval
• Committee reads proposal and decisions are guided by external policies
  
  • Nuremberg code/Declaration of Helsinki
  • British Psychological Society, Funding bodies
  • Local Laws: Mental capacity act; Data protection act; Human tissue act; Equality and diversity act, etc
• Committee highlights issues
• Some studies rejected/request significant changes
  Studies with NHS patients or staff require NHS approval

Question 13

key things considered by ethics committee

Answer 13

• Is informed consent obtained?
• How are data handled/stored?
  Are participants debriefed?

Question 14

informed valid consent

Answer 14

• Researcher’s name and way to contact them.
• Any risks in taking part
• A statement about data protection.
• A statement that they are free to withdraw.
• Who to contact if they have a complaint.
• The amount of any money or course credit that would be given for participation.
• How long the research will take.
• A description of what they can expect to happen during the research.
• Must consider whether consent can be given
  Age, mental capacity, understanding.

Question 15

Anonymity and confidentiality

Answer 15

• Anonymous data cannot be traced back to the individuals.
  
  • Can be stored indefinitely/published.
  • Does not fall under GDPR
• Confidential data can be traced to an individual but by a restricted set of people.
  
  • Participant can withdraw their data (usually).
  • Falls under GDPR.
  • Should be stored for a stated length of time.
    Ideally, should be anonymised at earliest opportunity.

Question 16

GDPR New data protection act

Answer 16

• “Data” are secured and used only for agreed purpose.
• All personal data held needs to have a legal basis (inc. research data):
  
  • Consent - don’t collect data under legal basis of consent
  • Public task
• Participants need to know who data controller is and the legal basis.
• Special categories:
  racial or ethnic origin; political opinions; religious or philosophical beliefs; trade union membership; genetic data; biometric data; health; sex life; sexual orientation.

Question 17

When to break confidence

Answer 17

• University and legal requirements:
  
  • Child or vulnerable adult is at risk.
  • Terrorism prevention.
• Consent form may add more:
  
  • The individual’s health or life is at risk.
  • Other people’s health or life is at risk.
    Consent form should explain when and how confidence would be broken.

Question 18

debriefing

Answer 18

• Explain what the research was about
• Resolve any deception.
• Return individual to original emotional/physical state.
• Allow participant to ask questions.
• State researchers’ contact details.
  Details of who to go to if there is a complaint.

Question 19

what is ethical

Answer 19

• Where do you draw the line?
• What is ethical and what is not?
• Not clear cut, much more subtle and not necessarily a “correct” answer
  School ethics committees and researchers (including you) need to make difficult decisions

Question 20

what is going wrong if anything

Answer 20

• IRBs or University Ethics committees have a conflict of interests.
  Journals not considering the ethics of the studies reported to them (reliance on IRBs).

Question 21

summary

Answer 21

• Bad practices have led to the need for ethical codes in research.
• Informed consent, withdrawal, debrief, confidentiality
• There are often grey areas.
  Research is reviewed by IRB

Question 22

what is a system of ethics?

Answer 22

a set of “standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession” - American heritage dictionary 1992. members of the psychology profession are obligated to follow the code of ethics set by the app. the research psychologists must treat human research participants with respect and in a way that maintains their rights and dignity, care for the welfare of animals when they are the subjects of research and be scrupulously honest in the treatment of the data.

Question 23

developing a code of ethics for psychological science

Answer 23

psychologists in the US published their first formal code of ethics in 1953 (APA 1953) and it was influenced by the Nuremberg code. The document was the outcome of about 15 years of discussion within the APA, which had created a temporary committee on scientific and professional ethics in the late 1930s. This soon became a standing committee to investigate complaints of unethical behavior (usually concerned with the professional practice of psychology) that occasionally were brought to its attention. In 1948, this group recommended the creation of a formal code of ethics. As a result, the APA formed a Committee on Ethical Standards for Psychologists, chaired by Edward Tolman (Hobbs, 1948). the committee took an empirical approach when developing the code. using a procedure Called the critical incidents technique. the committee surveyed the entire membership of the APA (about 7,500 members at the time), asking them to provide examples of “incidents” of unethical conduct they knew about firsthand and “to indicate what [they] perceived as being the ethical issue involved” (APA, 1953, p. 4). The request yielded over 1,000 replies. Although most concerned the practice of psychology (e.g., psychotherapy), some of the reported incidents involved the conduct of research (e.g., research participants not being treated well). A second committee, chaired by Nicholas Hobbs, then organized the replies into several drafts that were published in American Psychologist, APA’s primary journal; readers were encouraged to comment on the drafts. The APA’s council of directors accepted a final version of the code in 1952 and it was published the next year. Although it was concerned mainly with professional practice, one of its sections in this first ethics code was called “Ethical Standards in Research.

Question 24

current APA ethics code

Answer 24

made in 2002. includes a set of 5 general principles and 89 standards clustered into 10 general categories. they are designed to ‘ guide and inspire psychologists towards the very highest ideals of the profession’ (APA 2002 p.1062). it establishes specific rules of conduct and provides the basis for any charges of unethical conduct. 5 general principles -
1 - beneficence and nonmaleficence - must weigh benefits and costs of research conducted and seek to achieve greatest good in research with little harm done to others.
2 - fidelity and responsibility - aware of responsibility to society and exemplify highest levels of professional behaviour
3 - integrity - be scrupulously honest in all aspects of the research enterprise.
4 - justice - treat all involved fairly and maintain a level of expertise that reduces the chances of their work showing any form of bias
5 - respect for peoples rights and dignity - vigourous efforts to safeguard confidentiality and protect the rights of those volunteering as research participants.

Question 25

ethical guidelines for research with humans

Answer 25

includes making a judgement that the benefits of the research outweigh the costs, gaining the informed consent of those participating in the study and treating the research volunteers well during the course of the study and after it has been completed.

Question 26

weighing benefits and costs - role of the IRB

Answer 26

the dilemma faced by researchers is to weigh the scientific value of the research being planned against the degree of intrusion on those contributing data to the study. on one hand psychological scientists believe in the need to conduct psychological research on a wide range of topics but on the other hand research can create discomfort for those participating in it eg milgram.

an integral part of the process of planning a study involves consulting with others you could ask a research colleague or the formal process concerning a group called the Institutional Review Board or IRB - in a uni or college this consists of 5 people, usually faculty members from several departments and including at least one member of the outside community and a minimum of one nonscientist (Department of Health and Human Services, 1983). they are in all unis or colleges whether or not federal funding is involved. due to complex regulations of research with human subjects IRB members normally go through a training programme.

Question 27

getting IRB approval

Answer 27

researchers seeking their approval submit a rationale for the study and a description of research procedures, a statement about potential risks to ptps and how these risks will be alleviated and why they can be justified, a copy of study informed consent form and copies of materials used in the experiment.
IRBs distinguish between proposals that are exempt from full review, those eligible for expedited review, and those requiring a full review. For research in psychology, proposals that are exempt from full review include studies conducted in an educational setting for training purposes (e.g., asking students like you to test each other on reaction time in the lab as part of a course requirement), purely naturalistic observation studies of public behavior, survey research that does not assess sensitive topics, and archival research. Proposals receiving expedited review include many of the typical psychology laboratory experiments in basic processes such as memory, attention, or perception, in which participants will not experience uncomfortable levels of stress or have their behavior manipulated in any significant fashion. All other research usually requires a full review by the entire IRB committee

there are grey areas concerning decisions about exempt, expedited and full review so its common partite for unis to ask that all research be given some degree of examination by the IRB.

Sometimes, different members of an IRB are designated as “first step” decision makers; they identify those proposals that are exempt, grant approval (on behalf of the full board) for expedited proposals, and send on to the full board only those proposals in need of consideration by the entire group. At medium and large universities, where the number of proposals might overwhelm a single committee, departmental IRBs are sometimes created to handle the expedited reviews (Murphy, 1999)

Question 28

important component of IRBs decision - risk involved

Answer 28

sometimes no risk eg in field experiment. subjects may be ‘at risk’ or ‘minimal risk’ in other cases.
The distinction is not razor sharp but is based on the degree to which the people being studied find themselves in situations similar to “those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests” (Department of Health and Human Services, 1983, p. 297). Hence, subjects facing situations like those encountered in daily living that might involve some stress, but not a substantial amount, are considered to be “at minimal risk.” If the risks, physical or mental, are greater than that, participants are said to be “at risk.

When there is minimal or no risk, IRB approval is usually routinely granted through an expedited review, or the proposal will be judged exempt from review. However, when participants are “at risk,” a full IRB review will occur and experimenters must convince the committee that (a) the value of the study outweighs the risk, (b) the study could not be completed in any other fashion, and (c) they will scrupulously follow the remaining ethical guidelines to ensure those contributing data are informed and well treated.

Question 29

IRB approval - when conducting research outside the university environment the researcher may have to satisfy more than one review board.

Answer 29

A health psychologist, for instance, might be using a local wellness center as a location for studying adherence to an exercise program. In addition to gaining university IRB approval, the researcher will usually need an OK from the center’s research committee before proceeding with the study

Question 30

IRBs are controversial for 3 reasons

Answer 30

1 - the extent to which IRBs should be judging the details of research procedures and designs (Kimmel, 2007). Researchers legitimately object to non‐specialists (e.g., philosophy professors) passing judgment on methodologies they may not understand or research traditions they fail to appreciate. On the other hand, a poorly designed study has ethical implications. If it is seriously flawed methodologically, its results will be worthless, its participants could be harmed needlessly, and, at a minimum, their time will be wasted.
2 - A second problem is that some researchers complain about IRBs being overzealous in their concern about risk, weighing it more heavily than warranted, relative to the scientific value of a study. One unsettling consequence of IRBs being overly conservative, according to prominent social psychologist Roy Baumeister, is that psychology is rapidly becoming the science of self‐reports and finger movements (keystrokes on a computer) instead of the science of overt behavior. One explanation for the shift from overt behavior to self‐report studies is efficiency; studies that ask subjects to read a scenario (e.g., encountering someone in need of help) and predict how they or others would react can be completed much more quickly than studies that actually place subjects in that scenario and record how they actually react. But another reason, Baumeister et al. argued, has to do with getting IRB approval. Measuring meaningful social behavior (as in the helping behavior example) usually means using deception, and it therefore places more of a burden on researchers to show their participants will be protected. Self‐ report studies are safer.
3 - A third issue that concerns psychologists is that IRBs sometimes overemphasize a biomedical research model to evaluate proposals. As a result, they might ask researchers to respond to requests that are not relevant for most psychological research. For example, they might ask that the consent form include information about procedures or alternative courses of treatment available to those who choose not to participate in the study (Azar, 2002). This makes sense for research evaluating the effectiveness of some medical treatment but makes no sense in most psychological research, where the alternative to participating is simply not to participate. Susan Fiske (2009), a prominent social psychologist and former chair of the IRB at Princeton University, recommended that universities sponsoring medical research should create separate IRBs for medical and behavioral research.

Question 31

consequence of issues = lack of consistency among IRBs

Answer 31

Several studies have shown that identical IRB proposals have fared differently with different IRB committee members

Question 32

goals of IRBs

Answer 32

Despite these issues, the primary goal of IRBs is to evaluate any ethical concerns that may arise during the course of the proposed research study. Because IRBs are comprised diverse members and may not include psychologists, they are often guided by the Nuremberg code or Belmont Report, which are broader in scope than the APA code. However, it is the responsibility of the psychology researcher to adhere to the APA code when proposing to the IRB psychological research involving humans because the APA code both encapsulates the Nuremberg code and Belmont Report as well as expands upon them

Question 33

informed consent and deception in research

Answer 33

the notion that in deciding whether to participate in psychological research, human participants should be given enough information about the studys purpose and procedures to decide if they wish to volunteer.
typical consent forms contain several features
- volunteers agree to participate after learning the general purpose of the study, the basic procedure and the amount of time needed for the session.
- participants understand they can leave the session at any time with no penalty or pressure to continue
- ptps are informed that strict confidentiality and anonymity will be upheld
- there are people to contact if questions linger from study or wish to complain about their treatment and this includes someone from the IRB.
- ptps are informed of any risk that might be encountered in the study and are given the opportunity to receive a summary of the results when study is completed

Question 34

A new feature of the 2002 revision of the ethics code

Answer 34

is a more detailed set of provisions for research designed to test the effectiveness of a treatment program that might provide benefits but might also be ineffective and perhaps even harmful (Smith, 2003)—a program to treat post‐ traumatic stress disorder, for instance. This revision is found in Standard 8.02b, which tells researchers to be sure to inform participants that the treatment is experimental (i.e., not shown to be effective yet), that some specific services will be available to the control group at the end of the study, and that services will be available to participants who exercise their right to withdraw from the study or who choose not to participate after reading the consent form. Participants must also be informed of the method by which people have been assigned to the treatment and control groups. Although informed consent is essential in most research in psychology, it is important to note that consent is not required for research that is exempt from full review. As Standard 8.05 indicates, consent is not needed in studies using anonymous questionnaires, for data that have already been collected for another purpose (archival data), for classroom projects in which data collection is for demonstration purposes, and for certain employment‐related data collection exercises. Also, consent is not needed for observational studies that occur in certain locations; the key is whether the setting is a public one—if the study occurs in a place where anyone could be observed by anyone else, consent is not needed (Koocher & Keith‐Spiegel, 1998).

Question 35

informed consent and special populations

Answer 35

Not all research participants are capable of giving consent, due to factors as age or disability, and some persons might experience undue coercion to volunteer for research (e.g., prisoners). In these circumstances, additional procedures apply. For example, the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD) follows a set of guidelines that expand upon some of the provisions of the code for adults. unless the participant is an infant or is otherwise not capable of skilled language use, researchers are obligated to inform the child about the study and to gain what is referred to as assent. if under 18 parents or legal guardians give consent. Assent also means the researcher has a responsibility to monitor experiments with children and to stop them if it appears that undue stress is being experienced. In addition to the assent provision, the SRCD code requires that additional consent be obtained from others who might be involved with the study in any way. For example, this would include teachers when a study includes their students. The code also cautions researchers about incentives that might be used, either to induce a willingness to participate or as rewards for tasks completed.
researchers should not use rewards as a way to gain the Childs assent.

Additional provisions for the protection of participants exist with other special populations. Thus, legal guardians must give truly informed consent for research with people who are confined to institutions (e.g., the Willowbrook case). Second, it is imperative to ensure that participants do not feel coerced into volunteering for a study. This problem is difficult to avoid in environments such as prisons because even with the best intentions of researchers, prisoners might believe that their failure to volunteer will cost them in the future and perhaps even affect their future parole status. In general, researchers tend to rely on simple material rewards (e.g., money) and make it clear to prisoners that their participation will not be noted in any way in their parole records (Diener & Crandall, 1978)

Question 36

issue with confined populations = confidentiality

Answer 36

While normal guidelines for disguising the identity of participants apply, researchers are legally obligated to break confidentiality under circumstances that involve a clear danger (e.g., a prisoner participant reveals he is about to kill another prisoner). research with confined populations should be designed for the expressed purpose of providing knowledge that will in some way benefit the members of that population

Question 37

deception

Answer 37

Standard 8.07 of the APA code indicates subjects might experience deception in a study if it is determined by the researcher, and agreed to by the IRB, that the study could not be done in any other fashion. That is, participants might not be told the complete details of a study at its outset, or they might be misled about some of the procedures or about the study’s purpose, as in the eyewitness example you just read. Researchers argue that in the absence of deception in certain studies, participants would not act naturally.

Although deception studies with elaborate cover stories are more likely to be found in social psychology than in other research areas (Korn, 1997), the level of deception is minor in most research. Typically, it involves the withholding of some information about the study rather than a cover story that creates the impression that the study concerns topic A when it really involves topic B. That is, most deception research involves omitting some information in the consent process rather than actively misleading participants about what they are to encounter (Fischman, 2000)

Question 38

treating participants well

Answer 38

Several portions of the ethics code are designed to ensure that volunteers are treated fairly and with respect during their participation, that they receive complete information about the study at its conclusion, that any stress they encounter is relieved, and that their participation is kept private. It is important to note this responsibility extends to everyone involved in the running of the study, from the primary researcher to the graduate students or undergraduates who might actually run the experimental sessions. This problem of risk and potential harm is addressed in the standards relating to informed consent and use of deception and once more in Standard 8.08, which makes it clear that responsibility does not end with the conclusion of the testing session.

Question 39

debriefing

Answer 39

the researchers answers questions the ptps might have and tells them about the purpose(s) of the study. its not essential that ptps be informed about all aspects of the study immediately after their partcipation. this occurs most often when deception is involved, college students are the ptps and the experimenter is concerned about ptps talking to other potential ptps this can be referred to as participant crosstalk and can ruin a study.
the amount of time spent debriefing depends on the complexity of the study , the presence and degree of deception and the level of potential distress.
In a study involving deception, the researcher often begins a debriefing session by asking participants if they thought the study had a purpose other than the one initially described. This enables the researcher to determine if the deception was effective; it also provides a lead‐in to further explication of the study

Question 40

example of participant crosstalk

Answer 40

Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, and Kutter (2009) had subjects estimate the number of beans in a jar. Those participating were then given the correct answer. The question was whether or not these subjects would pass the information along to future participants. Some clearly did just that, although the percentage doing so was small (just under 5%). The percentage was reduced in a second study, when participants were specifically asked not to reveal the number of beans to others who might participate. Aside from urging subjects not to discuss the study after their participation, a common strategy for reducing crosstalk, consistent with Standard 8.08(b), is to provide information about the general nature of the research during debriefing but to provide full information about the study only after the experiment has been completed.

Question 41

debriefing purposes - Holmes 1967a and 1967b

Answer 41

dehoaxing - revealing to ptps the true purpose of the study and the hypothesis being tested. it amounts to explaining the importance of eliciting natural behaviours and discussing the nature of the research topic being studied.
desensitising - process of reducing stress or other negative feelings that might have been experienced during participation In the study.
subjects are also informed that if they wish they may have their data removed from the data set.

Question 42

advantages of debriefing

Answer 42

Several studies have shown that participants who are thoroughly debriefed evaluate the research experience positively. Smith and Richardson (1983) showed that, compared to nondeceived subjects, those in deception studies actually rated their experiences higher in both enjoyment and educational value, apparently because the debriefing was more extensive. One result of an effective debriefing is that skilled researchers can better understand their current study and improve future ones. Participants can be asked for their ideas about revising the procedure in order to learn more about the problem being studied. In many cases, their descriptions of what they were thinking about during the experiment can be helpful in interpreting the data and planning the next study

Question 43

privacy and confidentiality

Answer 43

APA general Principle E
Research participants should be confident their identities will not be known by anyone other than the experimenter and that only group or disguised (coded) data will be reported. The only exceptions to this occur in cases when researchers might be compelled by law to report certain things disclosed by participants (e.g., child abuse, clear intent to harm oneself or another). In research that could involve such disclosure, researchers should word the consent form to make it clear that confidentiality could be limited (Folkman, 2000). The basic right to privacy also applies to research outside of the laboratory that might affect people in daily living situations.

Question 44

ethical obligations under APA code when using human ptps

Answer 44

• Developing a study in which the overall benefits outweigh the overall costs * Avoiding doing anything that would harm participants * Gaining informed consent (under most circumstances) * Assuring volunteers they can quit the study at any time, without penalty * Providing some form of debriefing * Assuring participants about confidentiality and their anonymity

Question 45

research ethics and internet

Answer 45

Online research methods of interest psychologist falls into two broad categories - Anderson and Kanuka 2003
The first is some websites are designed to collect from the logging into the site. This is most frequent in form of online surveys and questionnaires but can involve other forms of data collection as well.
In other cases subjects login into sit control by research is on their own campus and complete a study electronically eg a survey created on software such as qualtrics.
Some research has been completed on the issue and it appears that they collected electronically corresponded reasonably well and similar results as data collection more traditional fashion however however is important to know there are differences as on online uses them more likely to use the Internet Internet to look up answers to factual questions have low self-esteem and be more introverted posing challenges to research where such factors may be relevant.

Question 46

Research are studying the behaviour of Internet users

Answer 46

Ranges from examining the frequency of users of selective websites to an analysis of the content of web-based interactions. the basic principles of research involved in the Internet introduces unique ethical problems for the researcher which has resulted in the development of a code of research created by the association of Internet researchers. And the American Association for the advancement of science outlines for IRBs that must decide whether to approve or online research and the APA board of scientific affairs established and a advisory group on the Internet in 2001 and publish its report three years later. Problems with informed consent and debriefing still exist. Consent forms can be used easily online but there is no opportunity for research as to answer questions and no way to know if the consent form has been read. consent problem concerns age research compose warning parental consent under 18 but is impossible to monitor compliance. Debriefing may also be problematic as online. There’s no guarantee participants will be there to read the debriefing information one click and the participant has gone without being debriefed. Additionally, deception involved while the dehoaxing part of debriefing can be managed by presenting clear information the desensitising part will be difficult if not impossible to accomplish.