ethics Flashcards
milgrams 1960s experiment
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).
implications milgram
- People can do terrible things in the name of science.
- “Teachers” in Milgram’s experiments.
Milgram himself.
- “Teachers” in Milgram’s experiments.
zimbardos stanford prison experiment
- 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.
BPS code of conduct
- 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
- Respect
BPS practice guidelines
- Legal framework for psychological work
- Cycle of professional practice
- Reflective practice
- Development, training and leadership
HCPC + BPS
(Health Care Professional Council)
protected titles
- Practitioner psychologist
- Registered psychologist
- Clinical psychologist
- Forensic psychologist
- Counselling psychologist
- Health psychologist
- Educational psychologist
- Occupational psychologist
Sport and exercise psychologist
HCPC titles not bps
- Art psychotherapist
- Art therapist
- Dramatherapist
- Music therapist
Language therapist
BPS code of human research ethics
- 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 for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals, groups and communities
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”
unbiased racial terms
- 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.
BPS guidelines to follow at all times
- Ethical approval
- Required for every study
- Consent
- Participants should be informed of all objectives whenever possible. All aspects influencing willingness to participate need to be given.
- Deception
- This is unacceptable if participants are typically likely to object/show unease once debriefed
- Debriefing
- All information for complete understanding of the study is required
- Withdrawal
- Right to withdraw at any point without implication
- Confidentiality
Information will be treated confidentially unless discussed beforehand
why get ethical approval
- 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.
ethical approval within the school
- 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
key things considered by ethics committee
- Is informed consent obtained?
- How are data handled/stored?
Are participants debriefed?
informed valid consent
- 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.
Anonymity and confidentiality
- 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.
GDPR New data protection act
- “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.
When to break confidence
- 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.
debriefing
- 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.
what is ethical
- 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
what is going wrong if anything
- IRBs or University Ethics committees have a conflict of interests.
Journals not considering the ethics of the studies reported to them (reliance on IRBs).
summary
- 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
what is a system of ethics?
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.
developing a code of ethics for psychological science
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.
current APA ethics code
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.