Research Ethics - Psychology Past Paper PDF

Research ethics Basics of Research Methods (PSYB19-104) Zsolt Horváth, PhD – [email protected] Practice Rating the acceptability of research practices: From a research point of view Morally/ethically Link: https://tinyurl.com/elte987 Definitions Ethics: moral princ...

Research ethics Basics of Research Methods (PSYB19-104) Zsolt Horváth, PhD – [email protected] Practice Rating the acceptability of research practices: From a research point of view Morally/ethically Link: https://tinyurl.com/elte987 Definitions Ethics: moral principles that guide our behaviour Psychological ethics: moral principles that guide a psychologists’ conduct or practice Research ethics: moral principles guiding research from its inception through to completion and publication of results Ethical dilemmas: conflicts between different principles of moral conduct Psychologists can have different position/view on a particular issue Practice – Ethical dilemma John Darley and Bibb Latané (1960s): Bystander Effect studies https://www.youtube.com/wat ch?v=GZgIYGaeWy0 What are the moral/ethical and other principles should be considered for and against performing such a study? Ethical codes Examples for comprehensive ethical codes formulating general priniciples for psychology in practice and research: American Psychological Association (APA): Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct British Psychological Society (BPS): Code of Human Research Ethics In Hungary: Hungarian Psychological Association, Professional Code of Ethics for Psychologists Ethical codes Principles, not rules: Considering circumstances during interpretation Each situation is judged independently, different conclusions can be drawn Ethical codes apply to students as well! Full understanding of the ethical principles governing the profession Ignorance of the relevant ethical standards is no defence for unethical conduct Purpose of ethical codes Guidelines for proper professional practice/conduct Good reputation of as well as trust in the discipline among the general public Violating ethical principles  Sanctions (e.g., ending membership of the professional body, unable to continue professional practice) Prinicples based on the APA and BPS codes Maximising benefit and minimising harm (APA: principle A, BPS: principle 4) Research in psychology should consider the position of the participant in research Be aware of the possible risk and harm to others, and try to minimise or avoid them (e.g., social, financial, institutional, psychological harms) Aim: serve the interests of the well-being of participants (e.g., personal values, dignitiy), Example Philip Zimbardo (1971): the Stanford prison experiment College students playing the roles of prisoners and guards to observe the psychological effects of perceived power. The experiment got out of control, leading to significant emotional and psychological harm to participants (e.g., among „prisoners”) The research was stopped early due to the extreme distress experienced by participants. Prinicples based on the APA and BPS codes Respect for people’s rights, autonomy, and dignitiy (APA: principle E, BPS: principle 1) Individuals have the rights of privacy, confidentiality, autonomous decisions  Research should ensure and respect these Vulnerable groups (e.g., children) Psychologist should respect inter-group/individual differences and avoid biases related to these in research (e.g., sex/gender, age, culture/ethnicity/nationality/language/race/religion, SES, disability) Research aims and procedures should be explained and described for participants Example Humphreys (1970): observing LGBTQ participants’ sexual encounters in publich washrooms, and recording car registration numbers to obtain more background information and invite them for follow-up interviews Absence of consent Violation of participants’ privacy, autonomy and dignity Potential risk of public exposure of participants Prinicples based on the APA and BPS codes Scientific value (BPS: principle 2) Contribution to and the development of knowledge and understanding is ensured by the research Inaproperate research design and implementation: waste of resources Social responsibility (BPS: principle 3) Research should be used for beneficial purposes for society (e.g., increase well-being of human and non-human beings) Being aware of and admitting the problematic nature of the process of interpreting psychological research findings Example Sir Cyril Burt’s research on intelligence (1972): suggesting strong evidence for the genetic role in human intellectual abilities Possible political implications: Do we provide compensatory support for ‘slow’ developers? In Great Britain the most successful 20% of children received a high level of education (i.e., grammar-school education) But data were inconsistent, probably fraudulent, hard to access Prinicples based on the APA and BPS codes Fidelity and responsibility (APA: principle B) Psychologists are required to take responsibility for their actions, adhere to professional standards of conduct, make clear their professional roles and obligations Integrity – accuracy, honesty, trustfulness (APA: principle C) Manifest integrity in all aspects of professional work Possible exception: deception (BUT: the possible harmful consequences should be assessed) Example Researcher interviewed the relative (i.e., parent or older sibling) of each participant: Obtained three events that the participant experienced at 4-6 years of age Giving information about a possible shopping trip to a mall Creating a false story about the participant: getting lost as a child in a mall, crying, being found and helped by a woman, and finally reuniting with family The participants were told that the study was about childhood memories Booklet: 4 short stories about the participant’s childhood – BUT 1 story was a false event (getting lost in a mall) Participants could record their own details in the booklet Two interviews were conducted with participants Rate claritity of memory, and confidence of remembering After second interview: debriefing (providing explanation and apologizing) Ethical problems: creating confusion, distress Prinicples based on the APA and BPS codes Justice – equality of access to the benefits of psychology (APA: principle D) Ensure that all people experience just and fair psychological practices Be aware of biases and not engage in unjust practices Example Research involving groups of 9- to 10-year-old school children who had never before owned a mobile phone Mobile phone was given to each child to send text messages over a 10-week period Parental consent was obtained The children were individually briefed and asked if they would like to participate in the study It was made clear to all children that there was the chance that they would not be selected to receive one of the mobile phones Example Use of basic/simple mobile phones to minimize the desirability of the phones to other children All children were tested each week for reading and spelling ability It was ethically necessary to check that the phones were not having an adverse effect on their literary skills  in which case the study would have been stopped Monitoring children’s texts for inappropriate use (e.g., insults, threats, bullying) Beneficial effect on increasing the general public’s and scientific community’s knowledge Practice Stanley Milgram’s (1963) experiment on obedience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuMt8b4UrcI Collect examples from Milgram’s study that violate the ethical principles of the APA and BPS! Maximising benefit and minimising harm Respect for perople’s rights, autonomy, and dignitiy Scientific value Social responsibility Fidelity and responsibility Integrity – accuracy, honesty, trustfulness Justice – equality of access to the benefits of psychology Practice Informed consent: Subjects provide an agreement to participate in research in the full knowledge of the research context and participant rights Before the person starts participating in the research Canvas: Informed consent_EN_International Sex Survey.pdf Collect any relevant ethical considerations that can be found in the informed consent form! Informed consent: voluntary nature Agreement to participate in research in the full knowledge of the research context and participant rights. Applied in psychological research, counselling and therapy Participation in a research: should be a freely made decision by the participant who has been made aware of the research aims and procedures Risk of involuntarily agree to participate in something which would have been deiclined Right to have knowledge of what they are agreeing to before agreeing to it The participation should be entirely voluntary ( involuntary participation) Informed consent: information Purpose, procedures and approximate duration of the research (e.g.: what the participants will be expected to do in the study) Inform participants about discomforts, risks and adverse outcomes inherent in the research  these might influence their decision to participate (e.g., measuring pornography among adolescents – moral and/or social sensibility/disapproval) Informed consent: rights Participants rights in the research Participants are made aware that they are free to refuse to take part in the research and withdraw from the research at any stage Default: withdrawal without explanation and without any negative consequences Participants’ right to withdraw at any point where discomfort appears to be higher than anticipated Right to withdraw provided data Consequences of refusing to participate or withdrawing from research should be explained (e.g., research in the context of a therapy) Informed consent: confidentiality & anonymity Information regarding confidentiality and anonymity Anonymity: keeping participant’s identity away from publication or any possible careless/incidental disclosure Confidentiality: keeping data of participants away from publication Differences: Psychological practice (e.g., storing clients’ data): ✓ confidential, ✓ anonymous Psychological research (e.g., publishing results based on interviews, making research data accessible to other researchers): X confidential, ✓ anonymous Confidentiality can be guaranteed up to the point of publication Informed consent: confidentiality & anonymity Default case: researchers ensure data anonymity Guarantee that individuals cannot be identified even having anonymized data! Special cases: pre-warn participants and explain to them any limits of confidentiality and/or if anonymity is not possible (e.g., offender participants, participants from a specific and very precisely defined group) Special circumstances to break the anonymity rule Dangers to human life (e.g., psychiatric patient plan to kill himself or a roommate) Risk of commiting serious crime (e.g., observation into gang life) Informed consent: confidentiality & anonymity It should be covered if voice recordings, videos or photographs of participants are used Possible exception: informed consent is not necessary if the recording or photography takes place in a public place and is naturalistic (no experimental intervention)  No risk of being identified personally or harmed by the recording Informed consent: confidentiality & anonymity Participants should be informed and permission is required if personal data will be collected (e.g., name, email address to contact participants in the future, Neptun code, etc.) Using codes for follow-up contact (e.g., based on birth date and monograms) The arrangements for privacy and security of any personal data stored A list of who would have access to the data Whether participants will be personally identifiable in publications based on the research Informed consent: other characteristics Benefits from taking part should be clarified (e.g., for academic research, community) Incentives for participation should be described Contact details of someone whom may be approached for further details about the research (e.g., leader of the research team, supervisor) Informed consent: terminology Avoid complex language, use of psychological jargon Nature of research should be explained to potential participants Researchers provide written information for the potential participants With adjusted and easy-to-understand terminology (e.g., children  university student) Obtaining a participant’s consent Providing opportunity for the participants: To indicate that they understand the arrangements for the research To give their agreement to take part in the research in the light of these Special case: research with children  the informed consent of parents or guardians must first be obtained Involuntary participation Example: naturalistic (covert) observation of participants  they are unaware of their participation Cars are observed  to determine whether older or younger drivers stop at a ‘stop’ road sign The information gathered was available to any ordinary member of the public Questionable practices Humphreys (1970): observing LGBTQ participants’ sexual encounters in publich washrooms, and recording car registration numbers to obtain more background information Manipulations that interfere with people’s lives (e.g., bystander effect) Involuntary participation Observational studies on delayed drivers at traffic light Examples: measuring angry expressions, aggressive behaviors High vs. low-status cars Mobile phone use vs. no use What are the ethical and research issues in favour and against conducting such research? Participants in a subordinate position Possible ethical concerns if conducting research with individuals in a less powerful or subordinate position to the researcher University professor/teacher recruiting participants among his/her students: they have less power (e.g., participation in research may be a requirement of a course, or initiatives may be given to participate  additional/extra credits) Clients of psychologists are dependent on the psychologists for help or treatment (e.g., prison inmates, psychiatric patiens) Pressure on underage students to participate in a research conducted in schools (e.g., pressure from teachers, parents). Initiatives Large monetary or other inducements (e.g., gifts) in exchange of participating in a research should be avoided (e.g., coercive effect) Limit payments to out-of-pocket expanses (e.g., travel) or modest hourly rate Professional services are offered as a way of encouraging participation in research (e.g., counselling) Precise nature of the services, possible risks, further obligations and the limitations related to services should be clarified Researcher should be competent to deliver these services! Deception Leading participants to believe that something other than the true independent variable is involved or withholding information to such an extent that the reality of the research is distorted. Distinction: deliberate lie  withholding of particular research details Most frequent purpose: to hide the true purpose of the experiment Other cases: Deliberate provision of incorrect information Frequent in social psychological research: without the staging of extreme situations by means of deception, it would he difficult to investigate specific phenomenon Deception Fundamental ethical position: deception should not be used in psychological research Deception is not available if it is expected that physical pain or emotional distress will be caused Use of deception should be justified: it can be considered if it has scientific, educational or applied value  effective alternative approach is not possible Future risk for psychologists and experiments: participants become uncooperative, suspicious and resentful Mixed evidence on these concerns Deception If deception is the only feasible option: It should be explained as early as possible (e.g., immediately after the individual data have been collected, or until all of the data from all of the participants) Opportunity should be given for the participant to withdraw data Acceptability of deception should be considered based on participants’ reaction at debriefing when the nature of the deception is revealed E.g., anger/discomfort/objection  inappropriate research conduct should be reviewed Practice To what extent do you consider acceptable the following deceptions in psychological research? Suggest ideas which would ensure that the research process is acceptable! Examples 1. In a study involving 4–5-year-old children, researchers are looking at children's playtime activities. At one point, children are asked not to play with a toy because it belongs to another child who is next door. 2. In a study, participants have been deceitfully insulted about their abilities or competence in order to make them angry and examine how these insultations change their behavior in a cooperative experimental situation. 3. In a study of gender-related stereotypes, participants had to judge a performance of football referees whose figures are only blurred in the videos presented. Some of the participants are told that the referee is female, while others are informed as judging a male referee. Physical and mental discomfort Psychological investigators should guarantee the safety of their participants  everything possible should be done to protect them from harm or discomfort What kind of physical and mental stress or discomfort can be considered as unacceptable? If physical discomfort is knowingly created by researchers, it is expected that to perform risk assessment and take steps to minimise potential risk or harm. Examples Bramel (1962): led participants to believe that their emotional reaction to photographs indicated a homosexual tendency. Sears, Rau and Alpert (1965): a child was asked to guard the experimenter’s pet hamster which was then removed from its cage through a hole in the floor when the child was distracted Laborde et al. (2011): sportsmen listened to the sound of a crowd hissing and to a recording containing negative imagery (e.g., decreasing self-esteem and self- confidence in a sport context) Mild electric shocks, loud noises, food or sleep Debriefing Briefing: giving information about the task to participants before they are tested Debriefing: necessary information disclosure as soon as the research is over (e.g., after a deception) Debriefing Mutual discussion between researcher and participant: Fully inform the participant about the nature of the results, the conclusions of the research Try to correct the misconceptions of the participant that may have developed about any aspect of research Delaying the main debriefing until a suitable time – if deception is needed If a participant is harmed in some way by the procedures, reasonable efforts should be made to address this and to reverse the negative effects Debriefing with deception: example Example: children are told they ‘did very well indeed’ whatever the actual standard of their performance and if the performance was below average, it was not communicated to them. Milgram’s obedience exeprience: participants who went to the end of the scale were told that some people were happy to did this Obedient participants compare their own unwillingness to proceed, and their experienced anxiety, with the fictitious happily obedient participants It hardly possible that these people left the laboratory feeling the same about themselves as they did before Debriefing Final page in online questionnaires: providing resources and further information for those who might seek assistance on mental health-related issues as a result of completing the questionnaire Example: study on mental health of individuals working in the gambling industry Interventions Intervention research in psychology/psychology: testing the effectiveness of a therapeutic drug, counselling or therapy Significant advantages to receiving the treatment Significant disadvantages in not receiving the treatment (e.g., no- treatment, waitlist control) Most participants probably would prefer to receive the treatment rather than no treatment E.g.: someone would not receive treatment for depression because he/she allocated to the control group Informed consent in interventions The experimental nature of the treatments should be explained at the outset of the research. The services or treatments which will not be available to participants allocated to the control condition should be made clear. The method of assignment to the experimental or the control conditions should be explained (e.g., random allocation) The nature of the services or treatments available to those who choose not to take part in the research should be explained. Financial aspects of participation should be clarified (e.g., participants may be paid  participants have to contribute to the cost of their treatment) Tuskegee Experiment Participants: only Afroamerican people in the 1930s Suffering from syphilis (incurable, fatal disease at that time) Participants were allocated to experimental and control conditions. Control group: effective treatment was withheld  they were at a serious health risk It had become clear that the treatment was effective – BUT: the control group did not received the treatment later on! Ethical issues in publication Data fabrication  Computational or statistical errors  Reasonable efforts should be made to correct it Open science movement in research: data and research procedures/materials should be made available for checking or verification by others A psychologist cannot claim to have demonstrated an effect and then withhold raw data, information on procedures and samples Plagiarism: using the work of another person without acknowledgement and as if it were one’s own work Conflict of interest (e.g., researchers getting funding from alcohol- or gambling industry) The Rosenhan Experiment (1973) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKXRJiCcQy0 Pseudo-patients: reporting voices saying “thud, empty, hollow”  Diagnosed as schizophrenic and accepted into psychiatric care Potential ethical issues: Rosenhan (principal investigator) was a participant For some participants there was no comprehensive description/briefing about the study A participant was omitted from the report who claimed to benefit from the psychiatric care (challenging Rosenhan’s assumption) Not able to contact many of the pseudo-patients Diederik Stapel’s research misconduct One of Europe’s premier social psychologists until his resignation Studies on „priming” Never actually conducted the research – data was made up and hypotheses were always supported Never was able to produce raw data or the participants’ completed questionnaires when asked for them Ethics committes Research ethics commitees (REB): Institute-specific commitees (e.g., university, hospital), and regional/national-level commitees Monitor the good ethical standards of the research of its employees and outsiders who may wish to research within those institute Ethics committes Institutional review boards (IRB): reviewing research proposals involving human participants to ensure that their dignity, rights and welfare are protected Psychologists, researchers and students in universities will have to submit their research proposals Granting institutional approval to research conforming to a particular protocol Protocol: information provided about the research should accurately reflect the nature of the research (e.g., research procedures, precautions) Research should follow the approved protocol (e.g., no change on research materials) Applying checklist to identify the research which is potentially ethically problematic REC in ELTE PPK https://www.ppk.elte.hu/en/research-ethics-committee All types of research activities that are concerned with analyses of data obtained from a human individual or individuals and which are not related to medical issues may only be performed if research ethical approvement had been issued for it by the REC. If the planned research may have medical aspects the application should be submitted to the Regional Institutional Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (TUKEB). The REC issues ethical licences only to teachers and researchers who are employed by ELTE PPK as public servants or as emeritus professors Thank you!