1

Research Methods Ethics in Research

Mel Slater

http://www.hausarbeiten.de/binary/5166/0.gif

2

Outline

Standard Principles in Ethics• http://www.bps.org.uk/• British Psychological Society

A Case Study –• Stanley Milgram Experiments on

Obedience

3

Guidelines (BPS)

Participants should have confidence in the investigators• How is this confidence built?

There should be mutual respect• How is this realised?

For ethical reasons “some areas of human experience and behaviour may be beyond the reach of experiment, observation or other form of psychological investigation”• Who is to say what is ethical or not?

4

General

Always think about the ethical considerations of experimentation“the investigation should be considered from the standpoint of all participants; • “foreseeable threats to their

psychological well-being, health, values or dignity should be eliminated”

How can it be foreseen?

5

Consent

Where possible inform participants about the purposes of the experiment.• When would it not be possible?

“The investigator should inform the participants of all aspects of the researchor intervention that might reasonably be expected to influence willingness to participate.”Special considerations apply to children.

6

Consent

The investigator may be in a position of authority over the participants. This should never be used to pressurise people into taking part.• Give examples.

“The payment of participants must not be used to induce them to risk harm beyond that which they risk without payment in their normal lifestyle.”

7

Deception

“The withholding of information or the misleading of participants is unacceptable if the participants are typically likely to object or show unease once debriefed.”“Intentional deception of the participants over the purpose and general nature of the investigation should be avoided whenever possible.”

8

Debrief

After the experiment – provide participants with full informationabout the nature of the research.Discuss their experience in case there are unforeseen negative consequences or misunderstandings.

9

Withdrawal

Always emphasise at the start and whenever appropriate that participants have the right to withdraw at any time without giving reasons.Participants can at any time withdraw and have the right to know that their data has been destroyed.

10

Confidentiality

Legal duty to maintain anonymityand informing participants that this is the caseIf such confidentiality cannot be maintained then participants should be told in advance, before they agree to become participants.

11

Protection

“Investigators have a primary responsibility to protect participants from physical and mental harm during the investigation.”• No greater than ordinary life

“Where research may involve behaviour or experiences that participants may regard as personal and private the participants must be protected from stress by all appropriate measures, including the assurance that answers to personal questions need not be given. There should be no concealment or deception when seeking information that might encroach on privacy.”

12

Observational Research

Some research is purely observational –“participant observation”• Eg, a researcher joining a pop fan club for sociological

study“Unless those observed give their consent to being observed, observational research is only acceptable in situations where those observed would expect to be observed by strangers.”“Additionally, particular account should be taken of local cultural values and of the possibility of intruding upon the privacy of individuals who, even while in a normally public space, may believe they are unobserved.”

13

Advice

“During research, an investigator may obtain evidence of psychological or physical problems of which a participant is, apparently, unaware. In such a case, the investigator has a responsibility to inform the participant if the investigator believes that by not doing so the participant's future well-being may be endangered.”• Example from heart rate study.

Suppose the participant starts asking for advice on personal or medical issues?

14

Colleagues

“Investigators share responsibility for the ethical treatment of research participants with their collaborators, assistants, students and employees. A psychologist who believes that another psychologist or investigator may be conducting research that is not in accordance with the principles above should encourage that investigator to re-evaluate the research.”

15

Milgram Experiment

Obedience to Authority• Stanley Milgram (1963). Behavioral

study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 371-378.

• Stanley Milgram (1983). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper/Collins.

16

Experiment BasicsExperimenter – gaveInstructions to a

Subject – who was asked to give increasingly highvoltage electric shocks to a

Learner – who was supposed to be learningsome word associations.

In reality –The Learner was an actor, and the shocks were fake.

17

Experimental Question

How far will a person go in administering electric shocks at the request of the scientist?• The study was prompted by events

such as the 2nd World War Holocaust and the Mail Lai massacre in the Vietnam War.

18

Method in Detail

The subject (S) is told that the experiment is about a new method of learning.Another person (L) comes in and the subject is introduced.There is a fake drawing of lots, and the person L is always chosen (this is the actor).

19

Method in DetailL is supposed to be doing a memorisation of word pairs task.It is explained that whenever he makes a mistake S must give him an electric shock.On each mistake the voltage is raised.

The shocks are labelled – mild, dangerous, …, extreme dangerRange is from 45 volts to 450 volts.

20

The Procedure

Around 135 volts L starts protesting that it hurtsAs the voltage increases he shouts that he has a bad heart and that he can’t take it any more.If S starts to wonder if the experiment should be stopped, the experimenter always says “The experiment must continue”.The experimenter will keep arguing with the subject and saying for the sake of science the experiment must continue and that the subject “has no other choice”.At extremely high voltages L stops responding altogether.If the highest voltage is reached then S is encouraged to keep administering the highest voltage over and over again.

21

Question

What proportion of people would go all the way to the end?

22

Unexpected Results

Before doing the experiment Milgramasked psychologists the expected outcomes• The consensus was that only sadistic or

mentally disturbed people would go all the way.

In fact 65% administered the 450 volts• Many showed symptoms of extreme anxiety.

23

Discussion

Divide into groups of 5.Choose one person to be person A.Choose another to be B.A is going to defend this work on ethical grounds.The other 3 will act as a committee arguing against it.Then swap and let someone else be A.Make a note of arguments for and against.Person B reports back the main arguments for and against.

24

Group 1 Discussion Report

In favour • The subjects did not feel pain• The purpose was to test whether the subject would do

what the controller asked, so that this is ok.Against• The subject feels guilty – feels what he did was cruel –

maybe hurt his personality• The controller should have stopped as soon as asked.

It seemed that subjects wanted stop earlier and were pressurised into continuing.

• Before exp the subject was cheated – because they didn’t say that the learner could not feel the pain.

• (4/4 were in favour of this experiment)

25

Group 2

In favour• Societal implications – if have a theory

about how people act in authoritarian situations this could have important humanitarian use.

Against • Self image of the learner may be

damaged (3/3 against).

26

Group 3In favour• Even if psychological damage they are explained at the end, so

that they know that in practice they didn’t hurt anyone.• They CAN stop the experiment when they want in spite of the

pressure.• They are told at the beginning that the experiment is safe.• They don’t have physical pressure, only words

Against • Guilt issue – which could be lasting.• They don’t know the true reason for the experiment – don’t

know that it is about their obedience, and they don’t know what they will do at all.

• The way of being told to continue was like a psychological torture and didn’t show respect for the Learner.

• (4/4 against)

27

Group 4

For• Physically no one gets hurt• To understand a real-life situation we need to simulate it.• The results allow us to understand human behaviour better• Very important in terms of ‘war crimes’ etc – gives an insight

into defence such as ‘I was only obeying orders’.Against• Deception is involved right from the beginning• They could have alternated between teacher and learner

(not so deceptive)• Subjects may experience psychological damage – the learner

is screaming etc – eventually was silent – so the teacher may be guilty afterwards.(7 in favour, 1 against)

28

Group 5

Ways to improve it.• Experiment is valuable – can test people’s

obedience• Before experiment where subjects and each

subject has to sign a consent form (this should be required).

• Do a psychology test beforehand to check the subjects.

• Valuable because we have to know how much pressure should be given to soldiers.

• Could stop after fixed time period.• 4/4 in favour

29

Group 6

Favour• Can reveal our response to authority to what

degree we can give pressure to others.• Causes no physical harm.

Against• Subjects should be informed that there is no harm

beforehand.• Experiment may have some negative impact on

subjects mind because of the pressure. (0/3 favour).

30

Group 7

For• Subject isn’t entirely lied to because he is told that it is safe and will

do no harm.• Can’t tell the purpose otherwise it would be invalidated and so it is

the only way of getting information.• Subjects were told that they could stop.• They were never FORCED to continue, only that it was critical to the

experiment.Against

• The problem of no physical damage is that psychological damage is less measurable and maybe more harmful. Could cause a great dealof guilt.

• They were put in a situation where they were trusting an experimenter to be impartial when he was urging them to do things.

• No prior screening.• (4/4 in favour)