|
Introduction
This section of the perspectives topic looks at the ethical issues
involved in psychological research. There are overlaps with work covered
at AS concerning the use of human participants and the old chestnuts of
consent, deception, psychological harm et., but also new material looking
into the emotive issue of animal research and also at what psychologists
term ‘socially sensitive research (SSR), which examines the effects of
research on the wider population.
The topic is synoptic in that it requires knowledge of psychological
research into a number of different areas of psychology and of the
specification. The ethics of using human participants has been covered at
AS in ‘social influence’ but we have seen other research since such as
Piaget’s work on children, Watson and Raynor’s treatment of Little Albert
etc. Animal research was covered in attachments (Harlow’s monkeys),
stress (Brady’s executive monkeys) and this year in sleep (Rechtschaffen’s
rats and Jouvet’s cats). Even the seemingly more innocuous use of Kanzi,
Koko and co. raises questions about the use of animals in research.
Finally, research into social influence and particularly at A2,
intelligence, raises questions about the wider implications of
psychological research on the wider population. For example, IQ tests
carried out on black army recruits in the 1920s did no harm to those
involved but the findings and particularly the erroneous conclusions drawn
and the way they have been applied, has been used to discriminate against
the black population of America ever since.
Your question (number 4 or 5 of section B) will examine one of these three
areas so this booklet will be broken down along similar lines.
A few examples of
past questions on ethics:
2000
(a) Describe two
ethical issues which may arise in psychological research involving human
participants. (6)
(a)
Outline attempts made by researchers to resolve these or other
ethical issues and assess how effective these attempts have been. (18)
2001
(a)
Describe two ways in which psychologists have attempted to meet
their responsibility to be sensitive to social and cultural diversity.
(12)
(b) Assess how
successful they have been in such attempts. (12)
2002
Describe and evaluate
the case for the use of non-human animals in psychological
research.
2003
Discuss ethical issues
relating to two or more psychological investigations that have involved
human participants.
2004
Critically consider
ethical issues that arise in psychological investigations involving human
participants. (30
marks
Most of the first
section is a copy of last year’s social influence section on ethics.
Ethical
issues in Psychological research
Having read about the research of Asch, Zimbardo, Milgram and co., you
should all now be familiar with some of the ethical issues raised by
psychological research
Ethics are the moral codes laid down by professional bodies to ensure that
their members or representatives adhere to certain standards of behaviour.
All scientific bodies have such codes but those in psychology are
particularly important because of the subject matter of the topic.
-
Psychology is unlike
most other subject areas in that its subject matter is entirely human or
animal. Because of this practically all research involves living things
that can be caused physical or psychological harm.
-
Psychological
research also needs to consider the wider community. Milgram’s research
taught us something unpleasant about the human race in general. Some
research, for example studies on IQ, have been used to discriminate
against different races or ethnic groups.
-
The knowledge gained
from psychological research can be exploited by people or groups to gain
an advantage over others. Skinner’s work on behaviour shaping could be
abused in this way.
Ethics in psychology is broadly split into three distinct areas, dealing
with protecting:
-
The individual from
physical or psychological harm
-
The wider social
group from harm or prejudice (socially sensitive research)
-
Animals from abuse
whilst being used in psychological experiments.
At A2 we study all of these in detail. At AS we only need consider the
first.
Protecting the
individual in psychological research
Many of the concepts here will be familiar, since all of them have already
been raised by Asch, Zimbardo and Milgram. In this section we will look
at:
-
Deception
-
Consent (informed or
not)
-
Protection of
participants from physical and psychological harm
-
The right to
withdraw
-
The right to
withdraw data
-
Confidentiality
-
Debriefing
We shall then consider ways of determining whether or not studies should
take place, and strategies for minimising risks if they do.
 |
Mr Wallace with the ‘dicky ticker.’
Milgram’s
procedure involved deception, lack of informed consent, physical and
psychological harm, denied participants their confidentiality and
right to withdraw (allegedly). However, a therapeutic debrief was
provided. |
Deception
Examples of studies involving deception:
Asch, Milgram, Cruchfield, Moscovici
Deception involves either concealing the real intention of a study from
participants or taking steps to mislead them at the outset. All of the
examples above used the second ploy, deliberately lying to participants
about the genuine reason for a study. Three of them (work out which ones
for yourself), also used stooges. The use of stooges always means
deception has been used.
However, is deception necessary? The researchers above would all argue
that their experiments could not have taken place without it. Imagine if
Milgram had said at the start, ‘Mr Wallace is really a stooge, who will
scream a bit but will receive no shocks.’ The study would have told us
nothing of interest and obedience would doubtless have been close to 100%.
To a lesser extent nearly all studies involve an element of deception in
that it generally isn’t a good idea to tell your participants what you are
looking for in advance. Menges (1973) estimated that as few as 3% of
studies involve no deception at all. (Some of you may use the BEM sex
role inventory as part of your coursework in year 13. Telling male
participants in advance that you are trying to find how masculine or
feminine they are will almost certainly influence the way they respond to
the questionnaire!)
There are a few ways of dealing with deception. Role plays will be
considered later, but the other essential step is debriefing.
Debriefing
It is really a matter of common courtesy to debrief your participants at
the end of any procedure and inform them of the point of the research.
Debriefing is crucial if any form of deception has been employed.
A
proper debrief should:
1. Inform participants of the purpose of the research
2. Ensure that there are no negative or unforeseen consequences of the
procedure
3. Ensure that the participant leaves in ‘a frame of mind that is at
least as sound as when they entered.’ (Aronson 1988).
4. Give the participant the right to withdraw their data and to see the
finished write-up of the report if they so wish.
As well as having the best interests of the participant in mind, debriefs
can also be a useful source of additional information in an experiment.
Participants may tell you things that you would otherwise not be aware of.
 |
George ‘dubya’
being debriefed following his four year participation in a study into
the effects of having a Dick* in the Whitehouse.
George is thanked
for taking part, assured that his identity will remain confidential
(and not leaked to the BBC) and given the right to withdraw (from
Iraq).
Researchers are assured that his frame of ‘mind’
|
Therapeutic debriefing
In extreme cases such as Zimbardo’s study, participants may receive
questionnaires, be asked to complete diaries and have follow up meetings
with the experimental team. In the case of Milgram some participants also
received follow up psychiatric visits!
Consent and Informed
consent
Consent
Simply refers to participants willingly and voluntarily taking part in
your experiment. Milgram and Asch for example did obtain consent. In the
case of Milgram he placed his infamous advert in the local paper and
people turned up.
Informed consent
This refers to participants giving their consent in full knowledge of the
aims of the study, the expectations of them and their right to withdraw
and to confidentiality. This clearly was not the case with Asch or
Milgram, but arguably was with the Zimbardo procedure. This raises the
issue of whether fully informed consent is ever possible. If researchers
know the likely outcomes of a study then what is the point in carrying it
out in the first place?
Informed consent and deception are closely related in that there cannot be
informed consent in any situation where deception is used.
Special cases
|
 |
Children
Children under the
age of 16 are deemed not to be old enough to give consent. In this
case permission has to be sought from parents or guardians.
|
|
 |
Detained
People in prisons
or psychiatric hospitals need particular consideration. Prisoners may
feel pressured into taking part as failing to do so may prejudice
their situation. Similar concerns apply to patients. Additionally
with psychiatric patients permission may need to be sought from either
relatives or psychologists.
|
|
 |
Students
It has been common
practice by many universities to expect students to participate in
experiments as a requirement of the course. In my fresher year I was
expected to earn a certain number of points by being a participant in
studies. Those involving pain (like the electric shocks I suffered in
acquiring my aversion to the number 3) gained higher points. Here a
certain degree of coercion is used and may not be entirely ethical.
|
|
 |
Field experiments
Piliavin conducted
research on the NY underground in which stooges pretending to be blind
or drunk (not both!), fell over. The research team observed the
reactions of bystanders. In situations like this ‘participants’ are
not aware that they are taking part in a study so cannot give
consent. In addition it is usually impossible to carry out debriefs
afterwards
|
Various ways of
overcoming the issue of consent will be discussed later. These include
presumptive consent and prior general consent.
Protection from
physical and psychological harm
Physical harm
The BPS guidelines suggest that participants should be exposed to no more
risk than they would be in everyday life. For example people driving cars
are exposed to a certain level of risk. If psychologists wish to study
some aspect of driving related behaviour then the procedure they use
should not put their participants at greater risk than this.
There are occasions when researchers have caused their participants
physical harm although these tend to be rare. Milgram appears to have
delighted in the response of some of his participants who would ‘bite
their lips and dig their fingernails into their flesh. Full blown,
uncontrollable seizures were experienced by three subjects.’ (Wrightman
and Deux 1979).
Psychological harm
This is more difficult to gauge but may involve embarrassment, loss of
self esteem, stress and anxiety.
Asch, Zimbardo and Milgram procedures would all have involved loss of self
esteem, embarrassment and some stress. In the case of Milgram and
Zimbardo extreme anxiety.
Confidentiality is one way of protecting participants from psychological
harm. If you do something that you are ashamed of in the name of research
but nobody gets to know its you its not going to be so embarrassing!
Confidentiality
The data protection act requires that the identity of all participants
remains confidential. As well as safeguarding privacy there is an obvious
practical benefit from this approach. Participants are unlikely to
volunteer for procedures if they believe that their identity and behaviour
will be divulged.
There were clear breaches of confidentiality in the Milgram and Zimbardo
studies as in both cases participants were secretly filmed.
Guidelines require that participants are not identified unless they give
their permission and various methods may be used to disguise their
identity. For example in case studies patients may be identified only by
their initials such as KF or HM.
The right to withdraw
and to withdraw data
This should be available and made clear to participants before the
research starts. Both Milgram and Zimbardo claim that withdrawal was
possible in their studies although when questioned afterwards it is clear
that not all participants realised this.
Advance payment
was an issue in
the Miolgram study. This may put additional pressure on participants who
may feel obliged to earn the money that they have received.
The debrief should make it clear that participants have the right to
withdraw their data on being told the nature of the study. If serious
deception has taken place then participants have the right to witness
their data being destroyed!
Dealing with the
ethical issues
This is a favourite question in which you are expected to describe and/or
evaluate measures taken by psychologists to minimise the adverse effects
of research. Obvious points to mention would be seeking consent, avoiding
deception, providing the right to withdraw, debriefs and confidentiality.
For fuller marks some or all of the following could also be discussed:
-
Ethical guidelines
and codes of conduct
-
Cost-benefit
analyses
-
Ways of obtaining
consent and avoiding deception
Let’s look at each in turn
Ethical
guidelines and codes of conduct
Following the immoral experiments of the Nazis in WWII, each country set
up its own set of guidelines for performing scientific research. In
Britain the British Psychological Society (BPS) and in the USA the
American Psychological Association (APA), produce codes of conduct for
both experimentation and for clinical practice. Additionally a code
exists for the protection of animals during psychological experiments.
Additionally all institutes that perform psychological research have
ethical committees that consider whether or not particular pieces of
research should be carried out. This body should have non psychologists
that can express more objective views on research.
Obtaining consent
and avoiding deception
Presumptive consent
(of ‘reasonable people’)
This asks people for their views on a particular procedure. If generally
they find it acceptable then that procedure is used… but NOT on those
asked.
Prior general consent
A
pool of possible participants would be asked for their views on research.
For example they may be asked about their views on the use of deception or
embarrassment during research. Only those participants who consider these
ploys acceptable would then be selected for later research involving fibs
etc.
Role playing
People are asked to act out the role of participants in problematical
studies involving deception or psychological harm etc. Clearly these are
less than satisfactory since people can only guess at how they would
respond in such situations. When asked, fewer than 1% of people believe
that they would obey in Milgram’s study!
I have deliberately
left these last two complex but crucial issues to last since they tie in
nicely with both the ‘human participant’ and the ‘socially sensitive’
sections of the topic.
Double-obligation
dilemma
Research psychologists are paid by the government to do a job. As such
they have a responsibility to Society to carry out research into their
chosen area. For social psychologists in particular this entails
researching on human participants in social situations. However, they
also have a responsibility (now laid down in the ethical guidelines) to
protect the welfare of their participants. As Aronson (1992) points out,
there seems to be a positive correlation between the importance of the
area being investigated and the likely harm that may be inflicted on
individuals. Basically, the more important the issue, the more vital it
is to use deception in an attempt to disguise the nature of the research.
Aronson (1992) believes the best way forward is the ‘cost-benefit
analysis.’
Cost-benefit
analyses
Committees may carry out cost-benefit analyses in which the likely
benefits of a particular piece of research is weighed up against the costs
to human or animal participants. Put simply does the knowledge we gain
about human behaviour and the advantages this might have for the wider
population warrant the suffering or embarrassment of a few individuals?
McGhee (2001) highlights a number of problems with cost-benefit analyses:
-
The costs and the
benefits of a particular piece of research can only be assessed in a
subjective manner. The only true judge of the costs to a particular
participant is the participant themselves. What are seen as costs by
one person may in fact be seen as benefits by another!
-
Costs and benefits
are broadly going to fall into two categories; ‘long term’ and ‘short
term.’ Trying to weigh these up is going to be nigh on impossible. The
benefits of a particular piece of research may take decades before it
becomes apparent, similarly the long term costs to an individual, such
as one of Zimbardo’s prisoners may take years to surface.
-
Supposing that we do
manage to determine the likely costs and benefits prior to a piece of
research, how do we do the adding up? How many acts of deception or
psychological harm equal one new theory?
-
Even if the
researchers or society decide that the benefits of a piece of research
outweigh the costs, it is unlikely that the participant will agree. To
them it is all costs in terms of time, stress and possible esteem etc.
-
Costs are real.
Benefits are potential! Taking Milgram as an example. We can imagine
the costs to the individuals and they are genuine. However, what
practical use have the benefits been? Yes we have all learned something
about human nature, something that perhaps we would rather not have
found out… but that hasn’t stopped further atrocities such as in the
‘former Yugoslavia’ or numerous cases in Africa.
-
Even with hindsight
the costs and benefits are almost impossible to weigh up. How can it be
possible to weigh them up in advance of research?
Socially Sensitive
Research (SSR)
There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that
provided they follow the BPS guidelines when using human participants and
that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not
having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had
their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with
their research.
But, consider the following examples:
-
Caughy et al 1994
who found that middle class children put in daycare at an early age
generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar
findings reared in the home.
Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the
children that participated would have been unduly affected by this
research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been
obtained, no harm would have been caused. However, think of the wider
implications of this study when the results are published, particularly
for parents of middle class infants who are considering placing their
young charges in day care or those who recently have!
-
Repeatedly, IQ
tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15
points below the average white score.
When black Americans are given these tests they presumably complete them
willingly and are in no way harmed as individuals. However, when
published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and
are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market
etc. (In extreme cases they have also led to the compulsory sterilisation
of American blacks in an attempt to protect the ‘*gene-pool’).
|
We therefore have
the bizarre situation where psychologists believe that it is unethical
to embarrass or harm individual black or female participants but
consider it ethically acceptable to carry out research that humiliates
or harms the larger population of blacks or women in society
As Brown (1997)
put it:
‘As long as
research ethics avoid the matter of whether certain questions
ethically cannot be asked, psychology will conduct technically ethical
research that violates a more general ethic of avoiding harm to
vulnerable populations.’ |
Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for this topic!), outline 4 groups
that may be affected by psychological research:
1.
Members of the social group being studied such as racial or ethnic
group. For example early research on IQ was used to discriminate against
US Blacks.
2.
Friends and relatives of those taking part in the study,
particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or
infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother,
3.
The research team. There are examples of researchers being
intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
4.
The institution in which the research is conducted.
It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!
Sieber & Stanley
(1988) also suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:
1.
The research question or hypothesis
2.
The treatment of individual participants (already covered)
3.
The institutional context
4.
The way in which the findings of research are interpreted and
applied.
The research question
Even the hypothesis or title of the research paper may raise ethical
problems. ‘Are there racial differences in IQ?’ Researchers
investigating this possibility seems to suggest that they believe there
are differences in IQ! As Sieber & Stanley put it; ‘such claims merely
serve the purpose of adding scientific dignity to prevailing prejudice.’
Similarly suggesting that mental illness or criminality has a genetic
component may cause offence or concern to relatives of schizophrenics or
serial killers!
Conduct of Research
and treatment of participants
One of the major problems in carrying out socially sensitive research is
maintaining the confidentiality of information that might be revealed as
part of the research process. In some areas of research, questions may
reveal information of a sensitive nature (such as sexual habits or drug
use). In such situations the issue of confidentiality is paramount. If
confidentiality were broken, then participants would be less willing to
divulge this information in the future and further research in this area
would have been compromised.
It is clear, however, that the expectations that a participant may have
concerning privacy and confidentiality of information must be balanced
against the interests of society to be protected against deviant or
criminal behaviour. In such cases there is a more convincing case for
breaching confidentiality.
The institutional
context
There are a number of ways this may influence research
a. The institution may affect the behaviour of the participants (e.g.
Milgram). Participants were far more likely to obey when the research was
carried out at Yale University.
b. A particular company carrying out research may use the findings to
their own benefit. For example Companies may use information about
individual employees gained during research by occupational
psychologists.
Carrying out socially sensitive research also carries significant
implications for the researchers themselves. Milgram's research created
outrage within psychology, across the scientific community and the general
US population. However, it is probably fair to say that this outrage
stemmed not from the nature of the research but from the findings.
Milgram had demonstrated that the average US male was capable of
atrocities so had pointed out something that people would rather not have
known. As a result Milgram was continuously harassed and criticized by
the American press.
Interpretation and
application of findings
Often findings may be blown out of all proportion or newspapers may just
pick up on one aspect of findings and quote them out of context. Hamer’s
work on a ‘gay gene’ may have resulted in parents wanting tests on their
offspring to see if they have the gene raising the risk of abortions for
what people view as unfavourable traits.
Kelman (1965)
suggests that it is the responsibility of all researchers to consider in
advance the ways in which their research might be used. This is in sharp
contrast to the view taken by many scientists, that knowledge is
'ethically neutral'.
Examples of Socially
Sensitive Research
Race related research
Early research into intelligence came to the conclusion that it was
largely genetic in nature. Influential psychologists in the USA such as
Louis Terman backed up the findings and this led to a number of, what
today would be regarded as, unpalatable measures. A movement for eugenics
(selective breeding) became popular throughout the US. Eugenical
sterilization was aimed specifically at those individuals in mental or
penal institutions who, from family-pedigree analysis, were considered
likely to give birth to socially defective children. Sterilization could
be ordered any time after a patient had been examined by a eugenics
committee that was composed of a lawyer or family member representing the
individual, a judge, and a doctor or other eugenic "expert." More than
30 states had enacted such compulsory sterilization laws by 1940. By
1941, more than 60,000 eugenical sterilizations were performed in the
United States. Iowa was persuaded by such views to pass legislation
requiring ‘the prevention of the procreation of criminals, rapists,
idiots, feeble-minded, imbeciles, lunatics, drunkards, drug fiends,
epileptics, syphilitics, moral and sexual perverts and diseased and
degenerate persons.’

Jensen (1969)
supported by Hans Eysenck (and played down by his son Michael in your red
text!), are quoted more recently as believing that the higher scores
achieved by whites on IQ tests were due largely to genetic superiority.
Such entrenched and prejudiced attitudes are very difficult to alter once
they have become established. More recent research has included:
·
Rushton
(1990) presenting a paper at the annual meeting of the APA (American
Psychological Association) stating that blacks have smaller brains than
whites resulting in their lower academic performance. Even in the
unlikely event of this being true you should all know (as should Rushton)
that it’s not what you’ve got it’s what you do with it that matters!*
Einstein’s brain was if anything, slightly smaller than average!
·
Levin
(1990) concluded that since blacks are not as intelligent as whites and
little could be done about this in terms of education so programmes
established to improve performance (such as Operation Headstart) should be
abandoned.
Of course, for such
ideas to become established throughout the population as a whole requires
media coverage. This as you are all surely aware doesn’t always provide a
balanced view and newspapers particularly pick and choose the juicy and
sensationalist bits to publish often resulting in even greater bias than
the original work suggested.
*or as Ebenezer
Blackadder once said… ‘it’s not what you’ve got it’s where you stick
it!!!’
Scarr & Weinberg
(1976)
In this classic study
the researchers showed that adopting black children into white middle
class families could significantly increase their IQ (by an average of
about 15 points or one standard deviation!). Ironically this was meant to
highlight the importance of environment in determining IQ in response to
work that had been done earlier by the bunch above! Unfortunately this
too was seen to undermine America’s black population since it was
interpreted that black families were unable to take care of their
children.
Intelligence
Sticking with IQ and
the nature/nurture debate there is also the controversy surrounding Sir
Cyril Burt and Britain’s 11-plus system. Sir Cyril, and others,
convinced of the largely genetic nature of intelligence advocated the
system of tests at age eleven that decided your future education. The
logic was simple: ‘thick’ at eleven, always ‘thick’ since it was in your
genes. In which case what point is there in attempting to educate you and
your ‘thick’ genes? Result: those that passed their eleven plus went on
to a decent ‘grammar’ education, and the rest a second class ‘secondary
modern’ version. Generations of British school children suffered from
this system and probably didn’t get the education they deserved. We now
appreciate (not the Royal ‘we’ cos I mean you too) that intelligence is
far more complex than Burt made out and the contributory factors are far
from entirely genetic.
Alternative sexuality
The main focus of
research in this area has historically been on the causes of
homosexuality. The findings of such research has played an important
part in determining media coverage of and society’s attitude towards the
issue. Up until relatively recently, homosexuality was seen as a disorder
and treated accordingly by early psychological studies with research
concentrating on the treatment of homosexuals. Methods included
psychoanalysis, drug treatments and even aversion therapy, with electric
shocks and emetics being used in an attempt to create unpleasant
associations. It wasn’t until 1973 that homosexuality was removed from
the DSM.

Eye Witness
Testimony
At first seems like a
strange topic of research to be involved in such a controversial area as
SSR. However, it does provide us with an example of SSR doing good
in society as opposed to causing harm. First of all EWT research (Loftus
and co.), has shown us that our memories are fallible and that defendants
therefore should not be convicted on the testimony of witnesses alone.
Secondly and if you
like flipping this argument on its head, you have the issue of whether a
child’s testimony should be permissible in court:
The idea that children can be trusted to give (and, presumably to obtain)
reliable evidence has often been challenged. For example, a mere 20 years
ago or so in 1984, Heydon, an English lawyer, voiced considerable
scepticism: First, a child’s powers of observation are less reliable
than an adult’s. Second, children are prone to live in a make believe
world … Thirdly, they are also very egocentric…Fourthly because of their
immaturity they are very suggestible... A fifth danger is that children
often have little notion of the duty to speak the truth. Finally children
sometimes behave in a way evil beyond their years).
However, more recent research (e.g. Johnson, 2002) has suggested that
children’s testimony is more reliable than once thought and it is now not
uncommon for children to give testimony in criminal trials (e.g. abuse
cases).
Bowlby’s maternal
deprivation hypothesis
Bowlby considered that
the young infant developed a firm attachment to its mother within the
first six months of life, and that if this attachment or bond was then
broken the infant would suffer permanent and irreversible consequences in
terms of its social, cognitive and emotional development.
You should all
appreciate by now that other arguments apart, Bowlby’s work was
methodologically flawed and that as a result his conclusions are
questionable to say the least. Most notably in hospital children were not
only deprived of maternal care but also of all other forms of
stimulation. Also, of course, being a correlation, cause and effect
cannot be determined and Bowlby failed to consider the importance of
poverty in causing both early hospitalisation and later delinquent
behaviour. However, Bowlby’s work was quickly seized upon by politicians
of the day who saw the opportunity to use it to their own ends. Women
were encouraged to leave the factories and the farms and return to their
perceived rightful place in the home so that men returning from war would
have jobs to go to.
Culture and research
Research into ethnic groups within a society can cause particular problems
due to the following reasons:
Acculturation stress: refers to the extent to which members of ethnic
groups are torn between conforming to their ethnic origins or conforming
to the demands of the Society in which they find themselves. That stress
makes them a more vulnerable group.
Any findings that seem to suggest that they are in any way inferior to the
native majority will further isolate them from Society.
Research that does portray them in an unfavourable light may alienate
members of the group and cause them to question their own roots. The end
result of this can be marginalisation in which they neither feel part of
their own ethnic group or part of the majority.
It is essential that researchers in the area are aware of the special
circumstances of such groups and ensure that their research (or its
perception) do not add to the pressures.
Ten Ethical Issues in
Socially Sensitive Research
Sieber and Stanley suggest the following guidelines for carrying out SSR.
There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in
general.
Privacy.
This refers to people, rather than data. The researcher may gain more
information than the participant wanted to give. Asking people questions
of a personal nature (e.g. about sexuality) could offend.
Confidentiality.
This refers to data. Information (e.g. about H.I.V. status), leaked
to others, may affect the participant’s life.
Sound & valid methodology.
This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive.
Academics are able to detect flaws in method but the lay public and the
media often don’t. When research findings are publicised, people are
likely to take them as fact and policies may be based on them. Examples
are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.
Deception.
Causing the wider public to believe something which isn’t true by the
findings you report (e.g. that parents are totally responsible for how
their children turn out).
Informed consent.
Participants should be made aware of how taking part in the research may
affect them.
Justice & equitable treatment.
Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicising an idea which creates
prejudice against a group & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you
believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as
controls.
Scientific freedom.
Science should not be censored but there should be some monitoring of
sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities
against their rights to do the research.
Ownership of data.
When research findings could be used to make social policies which affect
people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, research
is commissioned by a party with their own interests (e.g. an industry, an
advertising agency, a political party, the military). Some people argue
that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that
other scientists can re-analyse them. If this had happened in Burt’s day,
there may not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission
of intelligence.
The
values of social scientists. Psychologists can be divided into 2 main
groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are
important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is
useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology,
objective data). The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the
participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific
approach was evaluating a counselling technique based on a humanistic
approach, they would judge it on criteria which those giving & receiving
the therapy may not consider important.
Cost/benefit analysis.
If the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits, it is unethical.
However, it is difficult to assess costs & benefits accurately & the
participants themselves rarely benefit from research.
Sieber & Stanley
advise:
Researchers should not
avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a
responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.
They need to take more
care over consent, debriefing, etc., when the issue is sensitive.
They should be aware
of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others
They should make
explicit the assumptions underlying their research, so that the public can
consider whether they agree with these.
They should make the
limitations of their research explicit (e.g. ‘the study was only carried
out on white middle class American male students’, ‘the study is based on
questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate’, etc.
They should be careful
how they communicate with the media and policymakers
They should be aware
of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to
society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they
should tell the police/social services)
They should be aware
of their own values and biases and those of the participants.
Arguments for
SS
Psychologists
have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
SSR is the
most scrutinised research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more
SSR than any other form of research.
By gaining a
better understanding of issues such as gender, race and sexuality we are
able to gain a greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
SSR has been
of benefit to society, for example EWT. This has made us aware that EWT
can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also
made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of
adults.
Most research
is still carried out on white middle class Americans (about 90% of
research quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and
make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.
Arguments
against SSR
Flawed
research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at
a disadvantage.
Research has
been used to discriminate against groups in society such as sterilisation
of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low
intelligence, criminal or suffered from psychological illness.
The guidelines
used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and as a result are unable
to prevent indefensible research being carried out
Examples of
hopefully familiar psychological research that, over the years, has raised
ethical issues!
|
Researcher(s)
and date |
Schachter
(1959) |
|
Title of study
(if known) |
A stress
shared is a stress halved (anxiety loves anxious company) |
|
Syllabus area |
Inter-personal attraction |
|
Description of
study |
Female
psychology students who had volunteered for an experiment were led to
believe they were going to receive electric shocks. One group told it
would be painful the other told it would not. There was going to be a
delay before the shock, and participants had the choice of waiting
alone or with someone else. The high anxiety group (painful) tended
to opt for company rather then alone.
|
|
Ethical Issues
raised by the study |
Deception,
not told purpose of experiment, and no electric shocks to be given.
Consent
was not informed (true purpose of study not known).
Some level
of psychological harm caused (stress/anxiety).
|
|
Researcher(s)
and date |
Felipe &
Sommer (1966) –Nb England win the World Cup!!! |
|
Title of study
(if known) |
Library
Study |
|
Syllabus area |
Interpersonal attraction |
|
Description of
study |
Female
students sat at a table in a library had an experimenter sit near to
them. In one of the conditions he moves a chair nearer to the
‘participant.’ It was found that the nearer the experimenter sat the
more likely the student was to move or put a barrier such as a bag
between them and the intruder.
|
|
Ethical Issues
raised by the study |
No
consent, informed or otherwise was gained since the participants were
not aware of the experiment.
No right
to withdraw given
Some
degree of discomfort obviously experienced by some participants.
No debrief
was possible
Participants not aware of being observed.
|
|
Researcher(s) and date |
Piliavin
(1969) |
|
Title of
study (if known) |
New York
Subway |
|
Syllabus
area |
Bystander
apathy |
|
Description of study |
Stooge
pretends to collapse on a New York subway train. The stooge can be
black, white, appear to be drunk, carrying a bottle in a brown paper
bag and smelling of alcohol, or appear to be disabled. On lookers are
observed to see how they will react. |
|
Ethical
Issues raised by the study |
Participants unaware of the experiment
No right
to withdraw
No
consent, informed or otherwise since participants not aware of expt.
Possibility of anxiety/stress being caused.
No
possibility of debriefing to allay concerns/ anxieties.
|
|
Researcher(s) and date |
Milgram
(1963) |
|
Title of
study (if known) |
|
|
Syllabus
area |
Obedience |
|
Description of study |
What can I
say that hasn’t been said already, except yet again to emphasise that
no electric shocks were given!
|
|
Ethical
Issues raised by the study |
Deception,
participants not aware of the nature of the study, or that Mr Wallace
was a stooge, or that no electric shocks would be given.
Consent
was obtained but due to the deception this was not informed.
Clear
signs of psychological distress suffered by some participants.
Right to
withdraw was there but not explicitly stated by Milgram. (Issue of
money makes right to withdraw difficult).
|
|
Additional
Comments |
In any
essay on the ethics of Milgram be sure to point out Milgram’s
justifications and defences of the study.
|
|
Researcher(s) and date |
Wolpe
(1960)
|
|
Title of
study (if known) |
|
|
Syllabus
area |
Phobias
(classical conditioning) |
|
Description of study |
Woman with
a car phobia is locked in the back seat of a car and driven around for
4 hours. She becomes hysterical, but eventually calms down. The idea
of flooding being that the patient eventually learns to associate the
phobic stimulus (car) with relaxation. | |