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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. The individual from physical or psychological harm
2. The wider social group from harm or prejudice (socially sensitive research)
3. 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

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:

1. 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!
2. 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.
3. 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?
4. 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. 
5. 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. 
6. 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:

1. 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!   

2. 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’).

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:

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!