ETHICS
SPECIFICATION:
Ethics, including the role of the British Psychological Society’s code of ethics; ethical issues in the design and conduct of psychological studies; dealing with ethical issues in research
ETHICS IN AQA PSYCHOLOGY (CLARIFICATION)
There are two separate ethics sections in AQA Psychology, and they should not be confused.
Under scientific processes, ethics refers to the conduct and design of research, including BPS guidelines and issues such as consent, deception, and protection from harm.
In the debates section, ethics refers to the ethical implications of research and theory, meaning the consequences of psychological knowledge once it is applied or interpreted in society. This includes, but is not limited to, social sensitivity.
Questions in this section therefore centre on the wider impact, uses, and potential misuse of psychological explanations, rather than how ethically a study was carried out.
Ethics
Ethics are the moral codes laid down by professional bodies to ensure that their members or representatives adhere to certain standards of behaviour. All scientific bodies have such codes but those in psychology are particularly important because of the subject matter of the topic.
Psychology is unlike most other subject areas in that its subject matter is entirely human or animal. Because of this practically all research involves living things that can be caused physical or psychological harm.
Psychological research also needs to consider the wider community. Milgram’s research taught us something unpleasant about the human race in general. Some research, for example studies on IQ, have been used to discriminate against different races or ethnic groups.
The knowledge gained from psychological research can be exploited by people or groups to gain an advantage over others. Skinner’s work on behaviour shaping could be abused in this way. I could be shaping you right now!
Ethics in psychology is broadly split into three distinct areas, dealing with protecting:
The individual from physical or psychological harm
The wider social group from harm or prejudice (socially sensitive research)
Animals from abuse whilst being used in psychological experiments
Ethics (Human)
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.
Deception
Consent (informed or not)
Protection of participants from physical and psychological harm
The right to withdraw
The right to withdraw data
Confidentiality
Debriefing
Deception
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:
Inform participants of the purpose of the research
Ensure that there are no negative or unforeseen consequences of the procedure
Ensure that the participant leaves in ‘a frame of mind that is at least as sound as when they entered.’ (Aronson 1988).
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
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.
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 it’s you it’s 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 Milgram 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
Does The End Justify The Means?
Does the experiment/theory aim to discover something worthy and significant? Does it outweigh any breach of the psychological ethical codes? Milgram aimed to learn about Genocide. This may be seen as worthy. It does not matter if he was wrong, it still eliminates possible causes
Could it have been done differently?
Could it have been done as a role play? Do people ever really know how they will behave? Could it have been done on animals?
Remember, suggestions on how it could have been done differently are A03.
Did it have Informed Consent?
If people know the aim/hypothesis then surely the behaviour will have demand characteristics and become internally invalid (basically the research will mean nothing).Alternatives are: Prior general agreement and presumptive consent
Was Deception Used
Ditto above on Demand characteristics
Alternatives are: Prior general agreement and presumptive consent
Did the Participants Experience Psychological (embarrassment, humiliation etc.) or Physical harm?
Did they really? You could argue that Milgram’s participants could have learned from the experiment and used the knowledge to their advantage. Careful though, you do not want to seem like you are callous so always really consider the harm properly. Could it have occurred easily in real life, would it have long lasting damage?
Was the Debriefing Sensitive and Beneficial?
Some psychologists say a good debriefing can eradicate some breaches of the ethical codes. For instance, telling Milgram’s participants that everybody behaved like they did so they don’t feel like freaks.
What Is More Important, a few participants or the potential people in the future the study/ research may benefit?
A few participants versus (in the case of Milgram) millions of future genocide victims?
If we protect the participant then we learn less about psychology and if we protect the participant less then we learn more.
