Ethics Ch. 9 - 1

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

The primary emphasis in research is on the validity of the methods and conclusions, just

two of many factors to consider in evaluating the ethics of any study. Scientists must also

attempt to ensure that their research activities and actions based on their research (including the

actions of others) do not violate other legitimate moral considerations. This is not always an easy

task because analysis of the costs and benefits of research is so difficult. In particular, the long-

term consequences of research (both good and bad) may be difficult or even impossible to

identify. Many medical advances, for example, depend on basic biological research that was

done decades earlier with little consideration of immediate benefits (Comroe & Dripps, 1976).

Moreover, even the most innocuous or beneficial research might be misused by sufficiently

malevolent individuals. Whatever we learn about the determinants of anxiety, for example,

could be used by mean institutions or individuals to promote fear rather than decrease it. This

chapter overviews some basic ethical considerations that all researchers should reflect about

seriously and that may require especially close consideration in sensitive areas of research.

ETHICS APPROVAL OF RESEARCH

Guidelines for the ethical conduct of research have been developed by various groups.

Some guidelines come from government bodies that fund scientific research in universities and

elsewhere. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, for example, has

ethics guidelines including: procedures for institutional ethics review committees, a statement of

the individual and collective "rights" of participants, a list of the desirable contents of consent

forms, and a description of some privacy issues. The Council's basic position is that:

"While recognizing the vital importance of research to human progress, the

Council affirms that the welfare and integrity of the individual or particular

collective must prevail over the advancement of knowledge and the researcher's

use of human subjects for that purpose."

To ensure that such principles are met, universities and other institutions in which

research routinely occurs have developed procedures for the ethical approval of any research to

be done within that institution or by its employees. Primary responsibility for approval rests with

Ethics Ch. 9 - 2

institutional ethics review committees, also known as internal review boards. Ethics approval

generally involves one or two committees (e.g., a Department committee and a University

committee) that must review and approve any studies before the research is actually undertaken.

Approval by ethics committees is required by such granting agencies as the Natural Sciences and

Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities

Research Council (SSHRC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR, formerly

Medical Research Council) before grants are given for proposed research. Similar regulations

hold in other countries.

Most institutions will have a formal ethics form that must be completed when requesting

ethics approval for a research project. The researchers must answer a number of questions and

explain any deviations from standard ethical practices (e.g., deceiving subjects). The major

topics addressed in ethics forms are: informed consent, privacy, potential harm to subjects, and

feedback to participants. These sections are illustrated below using questions from the ethics

form that must be completed for human research at the University of Winnipeg in Canada.

Procedures at other universities will be similar.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 3

1. Will subjects be informed of the nature of theirinvolvement in the collection of data - of all featuresthat reasonably might influence their willingness toparticipate - before giving their consent?

2. Will subjects be told that they can discontinue theirparticipation at any time?

3. Does the study involve concealment from and/or deceptionof subjects? (No)

4. Will deception be used to obtain agreement to participate?(No)

5. Will participants be aware that they are subjects? 6. Will subjects or their guardians sign Consent Forms? (If so,

attach a sample copy) 7. Will data on subjects be obtained from third parties

without knowledge and consent of subjects? (No) 8. Are you and/or your associate(s) in a position of power vis-

a-vis subjects? 9. Is any coercion, constraint or undue inducement used to

gain agreement to participate? (No)16. Does the study involve subjects who are legally or

otherwise not in a position to give valid consent (e.g.,prison inmates, mental patients)? (No)

29. If private materials (e.g., documents, third personinterviews) provided by subjects will be made public,will due care be taken to obtain written consent andotherwise avoid infringing on their rights?

30. If the study takes place in an outside institution (e.g.,school, daycare center, church, nursing home, prison,hospital, playground), has written consent been givenby its administrators? (Attach copy or note withpromise to submit before undertaking study)

31. If subjects are children (less than 18 years old), will writtenparental or guardian consent be obtained?

32. If subjects are children, will each child be independentlyinformed of his/her right to decline to participate?

35. In the case of field work involving other cultures,

Box 9.1. Informed Consent Questions.

Informed Consent

Box 9.1

shows a number of

questions related to

informed consent

by subjects.

Questions that have

an acceptable or

standard answer

(Yes for most

questions in Box

9.1 and No for

those so indicated)

require no further

explanation.

Explanations must

be provided for

questions that have

a non-standard

answer (i.e., No for

most questions in

Box 9.1 and Yes

for those showing

No as the accepted

response). A Yes

to question 3 in

Box 9.1, for

example, would

require an

Ethics Ch. 9 - 4

explanation as to why deception is necessary. The explanation must satisfy the Ethics Review

Committee that significant scientific advance could result from the study, that alternative

methods are not possible, and that all possible procedures will be undertaken to minimize or

counteract the undesirable effects of deception (e.g., full debriefing).

Several of the items in Box 9.1 refer to special populations of participants who are unable

to give their informed consent. With children, for example, procedures are required by which

parents or other guardians provide consent for the children, although children retain the right to

decline to participate (item 32).

Where the research is taking place at another site (item 30), the researcher will generally

need to complete several ethics forms, one for each site, with approval by each location being

conditional on approval by the other.

Many agencies and psychologists are concerned about the use of deception in

psychological work. Researchers should always ask whether deception is necessary and whether

an alternative approach to the problem might be possible. Such alternatives should be pursued

vigorously. If deception is deemed to be the only way to answer the question of interest, the

methods must be thoroughly reviewed to determine whether significant scientific advance could

result from the research. Approval would occur only if the scientific merits of the research are

sufficiently large to offset the use of deception.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 5

Properties of Words: Letter of Consent

I agree to participate in this experiment,which has been approved by the Departmentand Senate Ethics Committees at the Universityof Winnipeg. This research is related to howpeople identify words in reading. I understand:

(a) that I will be asked to complete ageneral questionnaire about myself (e.g., age)and to rate properties for a number of words(e.g., word familiarity),

(b) that the session will last 55 minutes,(c) that the researchers are interested in

group information and that all personal data willbe kept confidential,

(d) that participation is voluntary and thatI may refuse to participate or withdraw at anytime without penalty, and

(e) that concerns about this study go to theChair of the Department of Psychology.

Date: ____________________

Signature: ____________________________

Box 9.2. Sample Consent Form.

In addition to the ethics

form, researchers provide copies

of the actual consent form to be

signed by subjects or their

designates. Box 9.2 shows a

sample consent form. The consent

form states briefly the purpose of

the research, tasks to be

performed, and the rights of the

subject (e.g., to withdraw at any

time, confidentiality). If there

were any inconveniences or risks

involved in the research, they

would be included in the consent

form. With children or like

participants, the consent form

would request permission from the

parent for the child to participate.

In such cases, it is possible to

provide more information than

normally, since detailed

knowledge of signers about the study will not affect performance of the actual subjects.

In general, consent letters should be as short and concise as possible. Mann (1994)

performed a study in which subjects were given long or short versions of consent forms

containing the same information. Subjects remembered more information from the short form

than from the long form. This finding is consistent with much memory research. Other

suggestions for making consent form information memorable are: be concrete and group related

information together in categories. See Stanley, Sieber, and Melton (1987) for a discussion of

these and related issues.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 6

10. Is confidentiality of the subject'sidentity positively ensured?

11. In cases where there is a possibilitythat the subject's identity can bededuced by someone else, is theparticipant's right to withdrawhis/her data respected?

23. Will non-coded data obtained onindividual subjects be disclosedto third parties? (No)

24. Could publication of the researchresults possibly interfere withstrict confidentiality? (No)

33. Can the researcher assure thatsubjects' privacy (as defined bythe cultural standpoint of thesubjects rather than that of theresearcher) will be respected?

Box 9.3. Privacy Questions.

Privacy

A particularly important issue in

human research is privacy. Subjects might

reasonably be disturbed by anyone other than

the researcher having access to personal

information of even the most innocuous sort

(e.g., how many words they remembered in a

memory study). A number of questions on

ethics approval forms will address this issue

(see Box 9.3).

One can assure privacy by eliminating

as soon as possible records that match

peoples' names to specific cases in the file of

data. In many cases, for example, it is not

even necessary for subject names to be

associated with the data. Consent forms and

data files can be completely separate. In other

cases, it may be necessary to retain temporarily information about which data sheet goes with

which subject (e.g., for follow-up testing). Careful handling of data also helps to ensure the

confidentiality of results.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 7

12. Will the investigator fulfill all promises?13. Does the study involve physical stress or

subjects' expectation thereof (e.g., heat, noise,electric shock, pain, sleep loss, drugs,alcohol)? (No)

14. Does the study induce mental discomfort insubjects (e.g., fear, anxiety, loss of self-esteem,shame, guilt, embarrassment, exposingpersonal weaknesses)? (No)

15. Will all necessary measures be taken to protectthe physical safety of subjects from suchdangers as faulty electrical equipment, poorgrounding, lack of oxygen, falls, traffic andindustrial accidents, the possibility of hearingor vision loss, and so forth?

17. Will the researcher attempt to induce long-termchange in subjects' behavior or attitudes?(No)

18. If the researcher plans to induce short-termbehavioral or attitude change, can theresearcher assure that such changes will bereversible?

19. Does the research involve any potential risks tothird parties? (No)

25. Could publication of results possibly harm thesubject directly or through identification withhis/her membership group? (No)

26. Are there other aspects of this study that mayinterfere with the protection of the well-beingand dignity of the subjects? (No)

28. Will the experimenter continue to treat subjectswith dignity after collection of data hasterminated?

34. In research involving cultural or religious groupcharacteristics, will the researcher ensure theaccurate and respectful description of

Box 9.4. Harm to Subjects Questions.

Harm to Subjects

The consent letter

contains information about any

possible risk or harm to which

subjects might be exposed.

Box 9.4 lists additional items

from the ethics approval form

that address the issue of harm.

Note in particular that harm

includes psychological

distress, as well as physical

damage. Ethical psychological

research eliminates or at least

minimizes emotional distress,

threats to the personal integrity

of subjects, and other

potentially harmful

psychological effects,

including the negative effects

of experimenters who fail to

live up to their commitments

to subjects (item 12).

Although much

psychological research is

unlikely to have harmful

effects, researchers should

always identify possible

negative effects of their

research, both direct and

Ethics Ch. 9 - 8

20. Following data collection will the purpose of thestudy be discussed with subjects, and willany deception used be disclosed and thereasons for it explained?

21. Will individual feedback be given only when theinvestigator also presents information on thevalidity, reliability, and appropriateness ofnorms for the individual?

22. Will written feedback on the outcome of theinvestigation be provided to the individualsand institutions involved?

27. In cases in which subjects are dissatisfied orcomplain about the research procedures, willthe investigator explain that subjects mayexpress their feelings to the Chair of theDepartment and/or the Chair of the SenateExperimental Ethics Committee?

Box 9.5. Feedback Questions.

indirect, and take steps to minimize such outcomes.

Subject Feedback

There are a number of benefits to participating in research, including exposure to actual

research studies and awareness that one is contributing to the growth of psychological

knowledge. Most of the benefits, however, require that specific information be given to subjects

about the purposes of the present research and the expected (or actual) outcomes.

Box 9.5 lists items

from the ethics approval form

that concern feedback to

participants about the research

in which they have

participated. The primary

purpose of feedback in most

studies is to provide

information about the purpose

of the study and about the

contribution of the work to our

knowledge of human behavior.

This feedback can generally be

given immediately after

completion of the final stage of

the study, either in

conversation with subjects, by a handout, or both.

A typical feedback sheet will: (a) be reasonably concise, (b) state the general area under

investigation (e.g., the personality trait of impulsivity, sentence comprehension), (c) define the

main theoretical constructs (e.g., word familiarity), (d) describe the procedures used in the study,

(e) outline the major predictions or hypotheses being tested, (f) thank subjects for their

participation, and (g) provide names, offices, and phone numbers of contact persons for further

information. Participants might also be reminded in the feedback sheet that they can take any of

Ethics Ch. 9 - 9

their concerns about the study to the Chair of the Department and/or the University Ethics

Committee. Write the feedback carefully to ensure that subjects understand the material and will

read it (i.e., be clear and concise). Read closely for technical terms that must be defined for

subjects unfamiliar with the research area and use concrete examples to facilitate comprehension.

In the case of special populations, feedback may be written for individuals other than or in

addition to the participants (e.g., parents, teachers).

Sometimes it may be appropriate to provide individual results to subjects, but researchers

do not generally do this. For one thing, it may compromise privacy inasmuch as individual

feedback requires a record of the subjects' identities. Moreover, many of the measures used in

research studies were designed to make inferences not about individual performance but rather

about group differences. A third reason is that there can be long delays between when data are

collected and when the results are available in a form that would permit individual feedback.

Such delays may compromise a promise of individual feedback. If individual results are

presented to subjects, special care must be taken to ensure that subjects appreciate the nature and

limitations of the results (item 21).

Animal Research

Separate experimental ethics forms are used for research involving vertebrate animals.

Because of the total responsibility of researchers for animal subjects and the potential for

invasive procedures, more specific details are requested by ethics committees than in the case of

most psychological (vs. medical) research with humans. The completed ethics form includes:

(a) information about the number and type of animals being used, (b) a detailed verbal statment

of the procedures to be used, (c) checklist details about the use of animals (e.g., observation,

surgical procedures, hazards, intensity and duration of any electric shock, social interactions), (d)

explanation of the method of sacrificing the animals, (e) classification by category of

pain/discomfort/stress predicted, and (f) explanations of why alternative techniques (e.g., tissue

culture, lower order organisms) are not possible. Students who want to work with animals

should obtain detailed information and guidance about the appropriate procedures.

Preparation and Submission of the Ethics Form

Researchers must answer each question on the form and provide supplementary

Ethics Ch. 9 - 10

Canadian Psychological Association151 Slater St., Suite 205Ottawa, ONTARIOK1P 5H3

American Psychological Association750 First Street, NEWashington, DCUSA200002-4242

Box 9.6. Addresses for CPA and APA.

information whenever answers deviate from the answers that pose no ethical problems.

Researchers also provide a written description of the investigation, a detailed proposal (e.g., one

that has been submitted to external funding agencies), questionnaires and other measuring

instruments, consent forms, letters of approval from external agencies (or a note undertaking to

submit such letters when received), and feedback sheets. The ethics review committee must have

enough information to judge fully the ethical implications and propriety of the research.

Once completed by the researcher (and examined by the instructor if part of a class

project), proposals are reviewed by two members of the psychology department's research

committee. Changes or clarification may be requested at that time. Following approval by the

department, the forms are evaluated by the university ethics committee. Similar procedures exist

at other institutions. For some research, researchers may have to apply for ethics approval at

multiple places. Institutions such as schoolboards and hospitals, for example, often have

procedures that must be followed before research proposals can be approved. It is important to

consider the time required for ethics approval in planning any research project.

Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Revised, 1991)

Ethics approval forms (e.g., Section

D, Item 4 on the University of Winnipeg

ethics form) require researchers to know and

abide by the ethical research guidelines of

various agencies, such as the Social Sciences

and Humanities Research Council of Canada

(SSHRC), the American Psychological

Association (APA), and the Canadian

Psychological Association (CPA). Complete

copies of the APA and CPA guidelines have

been published (e.g., American Psychologist,

1992, December) and are available from the associations (see Box 9.6 for addresses). The CPA

guidelines are summarized in the next few pages.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 11

The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (1991, p. 83):

"articulates ethical principles, values, and standards to guide all members of the

Canadian Psychological Association, whether scientists, practitioners, or scientist

practitioners, or whether acting in a research, direct service, teaching, student,

administrative, supervisory, consultative, peer review, editorial, expert witness,

social policy, or any other role related to the discipline of psychology."

The guidelines cover many roles that psychologists serve and hence include items that are

only occasionally or peripherally relevant to research. Because the code guides the behavior of

an individual when acting in the role of psychologist, personal behavior outside that role is not

regulated.

General Principles for Ethical Decision-making

Most activities of Psychologists do not present ethical dilemmas, but some situations do

require careful and thoughtful weighing of different considerations. CPA suggests that ethical

decision meaking should include: identification of relevant issues and practices, development of

alternative courses of action, analysis of probable immediate and long-term costs and benefits of

different courses of action on individuals and groups likely to be affected, conscientious choice

of action, assuming responsbility for consequences, evaluation of results of action, and attempt to

correct negative consequences. Familiarity with the CPA guidelines will help to identify

situations in which ethical concerns need to be weighed carefully and also provide useful criteria

to consider when actually engaged in ethical decision-making.

According to CPA, there are four general principles that should guide the behavior of

psychologists. In approximate order of weighting in situations of conflict, the general principles

are: respect for the dignity of persons, responsible caring, integrity in relationships, and

responsibility to society. These major principles guide more specific standards.

Although CPA has adopted the position that dignity, caring, and integrity in relationships

(i.e., factors associated with individuals) have precedence over responsibility to society (e.g.,

advancing knowledge), the relative weighting of these various categories would probably differ

among psychologists. Some psychologists might give greater emphasis to the collective benefits

to society as a whole than to costs associated with specific individuals. Because of the subtle and

Ethics Ch. 9 - 12

General Respect and Rights1.03 Use language that conveys respect for dignity of others (e.g., gender-neutral

terms).1.07 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that psychological knowledge is not

misused.1.08 Respect rights of research participants and others to safeguard their dignity.

Informed Consent1.14 Obtain informed consent for all research activities that involve obtrusive

measures, invasion of privacy, risks, or attempts to change behavior.1.15 Use signed consent forms when required or warranted.1.17 For informed consent, provide reasonable amount of information in clear

manner.1.18 Informed consent should include: purpose and nature of activity, mutual

responsibilities, likely benefits and risks, alternatives, consequences ofnon-action, and option to refuse or withdraw at any time withoutprejudice.

1.19 Clarify relationships when conducting research at request of third parties.Freedom of Consent

1.20 Ensure that consent is freely given.1.21 Do not proceed with research if consent is coerced.1.27 Seek review of human rights issues for research with vulnerable groups.1.28 Do not use persons of diminished capacity to give informed consent if persons

of fuller capacity appropriate.1.29 Obtain informed consent from persons legally responsible for individuals not

competent to consent.1.30 Carry out research without consent only after seeking it and if research directly

benefits participants.1.31 Be cautious with individuals in dependent relation with researcher (e.g.,

students). Offer alternative activities or range of research studies orexperiences from which people can select.

Privacy and Confidentiality1.32 Collect only information relevant to consent.1.33 Do not infringe on personally or culturally defined private space of individuals

or groups without clear permission.1.34 Record only necessary personal information.1.36 Store information in private and secure manner.1.37 Eliminate personal identification when possible.1.39 Explain measures to protect confidentiality.1.40 Only share confidential information with consent.

Box 9.7. Standards on Dignity of Persons.

complex factors involved in ethical decisions, researchers must reflect carefully about the issues

and their actions, and obtain advice from colleaques knowledgeable in the area.

In addition to the specific items summarized below, each principle includes a subcategory

called Extended Responsibility, which advises psychologist to assume responsibility for ethical

aspects of the scientific and other activities of their students and assistants (1.42, 2.45, 3.38,

4.28). Ethical responsibilities are not restricted to one's own actions.

In the

context of research

(our emphasis

here), the

individuals for

whom we need to

give particular

consideration are

research

participants, as well

as society as a

whole. The

specific standards

within each of the

principles that

appear particularly

relevant to research

are paraphrased on

the next four pages.

Principle 1:

Respect for the

Dignity of Persons

Box 9.7

Ethics Ch. 9 - 13

itemizes the standards related to Dignity of Persons, which in the research context would be

primarily concerned with research participants. There are four clusters of items here: general

respect and rights, informed consent, freedom of consent, and privacy and confidentiality. Close

examination of these guidelines will show that most are accommodated by the ethical review

procedures described above.

One CPA guideline that appears not to have been fully followed above is item 1.18,

which enumerates what should be included for informed consent. The sample consent form did

not list the alternatives that were available to subjects. At the University of Winnipeg, the

alternative to research participation for introductory psychology students is a short review of

specified journal articles. This is a standard part of the subject pool operation at our university

(see Subject Pool below) and I do not think that it is necessary (or desirable) to include details

about this alternative and other standard information on the consent form. My assumption is that

subjects selecting studies to participate in have already made their choice between the

alternatives available to them. Moreover, as noted above, consent forms should be as clear and

concise as possible. Others may prefer to include the information explicitly on the consent form.

Principle 2. Responsible Caring

Ethics Ch. 9 - 14

General Caring2.1 Promote welfare of research participants and others.2.2 Avoid harming research participants and others.2.3 Assume responsbility for consequences of actions.2.5 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that psychological knowledge is not

misused.Competence

2.9 Keep up to date with relevant knowledge and methods.Analysis of Risks and Benefits

2.14 Be sensitive and knowledgable enough to understand benefits andharms for particular individuals or groups.

2.15 Use pilot studies to evaluate new methods with risks.2.16 Obtain independent ethical review of all research that involves

unknown consequences or potential pain, discomfort, or harm.2.17 Only carry out scientific activity where probable benefits outweigh

risks.Maximize Benefits and Minimize Harm

2.22 Debrief research participants to further their knowledge and providesense of contribution to knowledge.

2.27 Avoid activities that place incidentally involved individuals at risk.2.28 Record and communicate information with discretion to avoid harm

to others (e.g., avoiding conjecture, identifying opinion).2.32 Screen research participants and select those not likely to be harmed.2.33 Minimize impact of research activities on participant's personality

and their physical or mental well-being.Neutralize Harm

2.34 Terminate overly harmful or unneeded activities.2.37 Act to control harm by other psychologists or members of other

disciplines.2.39 Debrief research participants in such a way that any harm can be

discerned and act to correct harm.Care of Animals

2.40 Use animals only with reasonable expectation that research willfurther knowledge about behavior or about particular species,or will result eventually in benefits to humans or otheranimals.

2.41 Use painful or stressful procedures only if alternative not availableand if justified by potential benefits.

2.42 Minimize discomfort and pain of animals (e.g., appropriate surgicalprocedures, disposing of animals in humane manner).

Box 9.8. Standards for Responsible Caring.

The second general

principle is Responsible

Caring, which refers here

to considerations about the

relative risks and benefits

of psychological reseach.

Box 9.8 itemizes the

standards falling under this

principle. The six clusters

are: general caring,

competence, analysis of

risks and benefits,

maximize benefits and

minimize harm, neutralize

harm, and care of animals.

Most of these guidelines

are accommodated by the

ethical review procedures

described above.

One exception is

item 2.9, which concerns

keeping up with relevant

knowledge. Researchers

should keep current in the areas that they investigate to ensure that their work is appropriate and

likely to contribute to knowledge in the area. Indeed, Rosenthal (1994) has recently argued that

the scientific validity of any proposed study should be a primary consideration in the ethical

review process. Rosenthal (p. 128) argues that "Bad science makes for bad ethics."

Although researchers should always do their utmost to design high-quality studies,

decisions about quality may be difficult for ethics review committees. Committee members

Ethics Ch. 9 - 15

cannot be expert in all the areas being proposed for research, unlike reviewers of grant proposals

and journal manuscripts. Moreover, the scientific benefits of research can be difficult to predict,

raising concerns about the kind of cost-benefit analysis proposed by Rosenthal. Researchers can

minimize some of these problems by identifying for ethics committees potential benefits of the

proposed research. Too strict an application of a "good science" criterion for ethical approval

may also limit opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to develop the scientific

competencies that will enable them ultimately to contribute to psychological knowledge. Where

training or some other personal benefit of the researcher is a primary benefit, costs to subjects

should generally be minimized.

Principle 3. Integrity in Relationships

The third principle in the CPA guidelines, Integrity in Relationships, addresses activities

related to honest and open interactions with others, including research participants. Box 9.9

summarizes the guidelines, which are grouped into seven clusters: accuracy and honesty,

objectivity and lack of bias, openness, use of deception, conflict of interest, and reliance on

discipline.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 16

Accuracy and Honesty3.1 Do not participate in or condone dishonesty, fraud, or

misrepresentation.3.5 Accurately represent activities and outcomes in all spoken or written

communication (e.g., research reports).3.6 Prevent and/or act to correct misrepresentations by others.3.7 Take credit for work only in proportion to contribution.3.8 Admit limitations of methods and findings.3.9 Do not suppress disconfirming evidence and acknowledge alternative

explanations.Objectivity and Lack of Bias

3.10 Evaluate contribution of attitudes and values to activities andintegrate this awareness into efforts to be objective andunbiased in research and other activities.

3.11 Communicate as completely and objectively as possible anddifferentiate facts, theories, and opinions.

3.12 Present instructions accurately, avoiding bias in selection andpresentation of information.

3.13 Clarify distortions by others of their research.Openness

3.14 Clearly state all information needed for informed consent (e.g., fees,possible conflicts).

3.15 Provide suitable information in appropriate language about researchfindings if appropriate and/or asked.

3.17 Honour all promises in agreements.3.19 Act consistent with commitment to open inquiry and to clear

communication of factors that may affect their research.3.20 Submit research to independent experts for evaluation.

Use of Deception3.24 Do not engage in deception if alternative procedures available or

negative effects cannot be predicted or offset.3.25 Do not engage in deception if it interferes with participant's

understanding of facts that would influence informed consent.3.26 Use minimum necessary level of deception.3.27 During debriefing, clarify nature of study and why deception was

necessary, and seek to re-establish any trust that might havebeen lost.

3.29 Seek independent ethical review of risks.Conflict of Interest

3.30 Do not exploit professional relationships.3.31 Do not offer rewards to participate in harmful activities.

Reliance on Discipline3.34 Be familiar with discipline's rules and regulations.

Box 9.9. Standards for Integrity of Relationships.

The use of

deception is a particularly

thorny research issue and,

as described above, must

be justified prior to

undertaking the research

and accompanied by

debriefing procedures that

will explain the deception

and its necessity, and will

ease any discomfort caused

by that deception.

Scientific fraud.

The accuracy and honesty

cluster raises a number of

issues that have been much

debated in recent years in

response to examples of

scientific fraud and

misconduct. It has been

observed that scientists as

renowned as Mendel may

have modified their data or

even faked entire studies.

Rightly so, such cases raise

increasing concern among scientists and the public about the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

Despite the important lesson provided by cases of fraud, such reports have produced

some excessive claims about the incidence of fraud and deceit in the scientific community. The

back cover of Broad and Ward (1982), for example, makes the extravagant claim that "corruption

Ethics Ch. 9 - 17

and deceit have always been as common in science as in any other undertaking." Although

scientists do need to carefully monitor their activities, such claims seem excessive inasmuch as

science has a number of built-in safeguards that are missing in many areas of human endeavor.

Publication is one of the primary controls against fraud, which is probably one reason why

publishing is so important in science. Researchers who report false findings would have to pray

that no one who read their study would in fact attempt to replicate the research. Such wishful

thinking is patently incorrect, especially when the findings are controversial and especially in a

time when replication and meta-analysis (i.e., combining results across published studies) are

emphasized. It is also important to note that reports of unethical behavior by scientists, no matter

how numerous, are inadequate empirically to justify the conclusion that fraud is as likely in

science as other institutions (e.g., politics, business). We would need to measure the incidence of

fraud across institutions to test such an hypothesis and, to my knowledge, such a scientific

comparison has not been made.

Another reason to be cautious about extreme claims about scientific fraud is the difficulty

in arriving at definite conclusions in some of the better known cases relevant to psychology. The

case of Cyril Burt, who did much of the early research on the heritability of intelligence, is a

good case of the complexities involved in historical detective work. A number of authors have

claimed, with seemingly compelling evidence, that Burt faked twin data on which some of his

analyses and reports were based (e.g., Gould, 1981; Hearnshaw, 1979; Kamin, 1974). For

example, two correlation coefficients reported by Burt were exactly the same to three decimals,

even though one correlation was based on 20 twins and another on 50 twins (including the

original 20). Others, however, have been able to explain to their satisfaction the anomalies in

Burt's data and other concerns (e.g., Samelson, 1992). Such ongoing debates about particular

cases suggest cautious concern about the extent of scientific fraud in psychology and other

sciences. Nonetheless, the controversies do suggest that pressures to cheat do exist in science

and need to be resisted as strongly as more frequently-occurring challenges to scientific integrity.

Ethics Ch. 9 - 18

Development of Knowledge4.1 Contribute to psychology through pursuit of knowledge, unless such

activity conflicts with other basic ethical requirements.4.2 Keep current in area(s) of research.

Beneficial Activities4.6 Monitor ethical practices and safeguards.4.9 Protect psychology from misuse.

Respect for Society4.13 Acquire adequate knowledge before beginning work with particular

groups.Development of Society

4.18 Be sensitive to societal needs and concerns in determining researchquestions, collecting information, and interpreting results.

4.19 Keep particularly well informed if work is related to societal issues.4.21 Discuss limits of work that touches on societal issues.4.22 Use discretion in communication to discourage misuse.4.23 Exercise special care with work on vulnerable groups.4.24 Do not engage in research that contributes to illegal activities.

Box 9.10. Standards for Responsibility to Society.

Principle 4. Responsibility to Society

The final principle subsumes activities related to the societal benefits and risks associated

with psychological research and other activities. The four clusters identified in Box 9.10 are:

development of knowledge, beneficial activities, respect for society, and development of society.

Pursuit of knowledge appears as standard 4.1.

As a scientist, I find

it somewhat disconcerting

that scientific benefits rank

so low in the CPA scheme,

although ethical guidelines

might naturally emphasize

the individual rights of

research participants more

than the rights of people in

general or potential

benefits that may accrue to

humanity in the future.

Nonetheless, it is important that these future benefits be given due weight in evaluating the

ethical merits of particular studies. Animal research that would appear to many quite unethical

on its own, for example, has resulted in dramatic alleviation of human suffering.

A second reason that scientific considerations may deserve more attention is that ethical

procedures are not scientifically-neutral; such procedures can influence the outcome of studies in

a variety of ways. For example, current ethical guidelines giving participants the right to

withdraw at any time can modify results. As one instance, noise has negative effects on

performance when subjects cannot voluntarily withdraw from the situation, but has no effect

when subjects are free to withdraw (Gardner, 1978). Similarly, noninformed subjects show

verbal conditioning effects, whereas subjects informed according to ethical guidelines do not

(Resnick & Schwartz, 1973). Such findings demonstrate that behavior of human subjects can be

influenced by ethical procedures, indicating that scientists and academics on ethics review

Ethics Ch. 9 - 19

committees must carefully consider the possible impact of ethical procedures on scientific

findings. In extreme cases, truly beneficial or harmful effects of treatments may be missed

because ethics procedures were used that did not appear in the natural settings to which the

treatments would be more generally applied. Others believe that ethical considerations have

greater priority than scientific considerations (Royall, 1991). It is to be hoped that the emphasis

of researchers on scientific merit and the emphasis of ethics committees on subject rights balance

one another in a judicious manner, rather than letting one side predominate.

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT SUBJECT POOLS

Many psychology departments provide opportunities for or require students to participate

in psychological research. Introductory psychology students at the University of Winnipeg

normally participate in 5 hours of experiments, write brief reviews of 5 short research articles, or

some combination of the two that sum to five (e.g., 2 hours of experiments and 3 reviews).

These requirements are indicated clearly to students at the start of the year.

The procedures for recruiting participants will vary from university to university. At my

university, researchers post sign-up sheets at a designated site and students select the studies that

they wish to participate in and the times. Sign-up sheets are only provided to researchers who

have fulfilled the ethics requirements and have submitted necessary forms for the study (e.g.,

consent form, feedback). Students collect receipts for each study in which they participate and

submit receipts to their instructors at the end of the year.

Subject pools have been somewhat controversial in departments of psychology and

universities more widely. A fundamental question is whether participation in research is truly

educational. I believe that participating in psychological research does provide a view of the

discipline that differs from and is more complete than the views available in class or from a

textbook. Student participants have opportunities to experience several actual studies and to

relate their concrete experiences to the theoretical purposes of the research. Conscientious

adherence to feedback procedures will ensure that these pedagogical objectives are met. The

informed consent procedures, ability to withdraw, availability of multiple studies from which to

choose, and the review alternative serve to maximize the choice and control of students. I also

Ethics Ch. 9 - 20

think that students appreciate the importance of human subjects for psychological research that

will benefit people in general.

In conclusion, ethical issues are complex and need to be considered thoughtfully by every

researcher. The issues may be particularly contentious when research involves powerless

populations (e.g., children), sensitive topics (e.g., gender or racial differences, heritability of

intelligence), or the use of animals in research that involves pain or discomfort. Students and

researchers interested in deeper coverage of ethical issues than that provided here should

examine some of the general references listed at the end of the chapter. In examining ethical

issues, however, my own view is that scientific and educational benefits must be given

appropriate weight along with moral or value issues related to participants rights and the

experimenter's responsibilities.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (1973). Ethical principles in the conduct of research with

human participants. Washington: Author. \UOW BF 200 A46

American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological

testing. Washington, DC: Author.

Broad, W., & Wade, N. (1982). Betrayers of the truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Canadian Psychological Association (1991). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists

(Revised). Ottawa, Canada: Author.

Carroll, M. A., Schneider, H. G., & Wesley, G. R. (1985). Ethics in the practice of psychology.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. \UOW BF 75 C37

Comroe, J. H., & Dripps, R. D. (1976). Scientific basis for the support of biomedical science.

Science, 192, 105-111.

Fisher, C. B., & Tryon, W. W. (1990). Ethics in applied developmental psychology: Emerging

issues in an emerging field. Norwood: Ablex. \DAFOE BF 712 A36 v.4 1990

Gardner, G. T. (1978). Effects of federal human subjects regulations on data obtained in

environmental stressor research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 628-

Ethics Ch. 9 - 21

634.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.

Hearnshaw, L.S. (1979). Cyril Burt, Psychologist. London: Methuen.

Jensen, R. E. (Ed.) (1992). Standards and ethics in clinical psychology. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America. \DAFOE RC 467 S77 1992

Kamin, L.J. (1974). The Science and Politics of IQ. Potomac: Erlbaum.

Mann, T. (1994). Informed consent for psychological research: Do subjects comprehend

consent forms and understand their legal rights? Psychological Science, 5, 140-143.

Resnick, J. H., & Schwartz, T. (1973). Ethical standards as an independent variable in

psychological research. American Psychologist, 28?, 134-139.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological

research. Psychological Science, 5, 127-134.

Royall, R. M. (1991). Ethics and statistics in randomized clinical trials. Statistical Science, 6,

52-62.

Samelson, F. (1992). Rescuing the reputation of Sir Cyril (Burt). Journal of the History of the

Behavioral Sciences, 28, 1992, 221 - 233.

Schuler, H. (1982). Ethical problems in psychological research [translated by Margaret S.

Woodruff, Robert A. Wicklund]. New York: Academic Press. \UOW BF 76.5 S313

Sieber, J. E. (1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal

review boards. Sage.

Stanley, B., Sieber, J. E., & Melton, G. B. (1987). Empirical studies of ethical issues in research:

A research agenda. American Psychologist, 42, 735-741.

Steininger, M., Newell, D., & Garcia, L. T. (1984). Ethical issues in psychology. Homewood,

IL: Dorsey Press. \DAFOE BF 76.4 S74 198