Chapter 4 Research Methods

Debriefed

to inform participants afterward about a study's true nature, details, and hypotheses

Animal care guidelines and the three R's: animal Research (Standard 8.09)

Animal research in the United States uses the resources of the guide for the care and use of laboratory animals, which focuses on what's known as the Three R's: Replacement, refinement, and reduction 1. Replacement: means researchers should find alternatives to animal research when possible. For example; some studies can use computer simulations instead of animal subjects. 2. Refinement: means researchers must modify experimental procedures and other aspects of animal care to minimize or eliminate animal distress. 3. Reduction: means researchers should adopt experimental designs and procedures that require the fewest animal subjects possible. In addition, the manual provides guidelines for housing facilities, diet, and other aspects of animal care and research. The guide indicates which species must be housed in social groups in specific age sizes, temperature and humidity ranges, air quality, lighting and noise conditions, sanitation procedures, and enrichment such as toys and bedding

Data Fabrication (Standard 8.10) and Data Falsification

DF: a form of research misconduct in which a researcher invent data that fits the hypothesis DF: a form of research misconduct in which a researcher influences A studies results, perhaps by deleting observations from a data set or by influencing participants to act in the hypothesized way. Two forms of research misconduct about the manipulation of results. DF occurs when instead of recording what really happens in a study researchers in the data that fit their hypotheses. DF occurs when researchers influence the studies results perhaps by selectively deleting observations from a data set or by influencing the research subjects to act in a hypothesized way. One case exemplifies both of these breaches. In 2012 social psychologist Diederik Stapel was fired from his job as a professor at Tilburg University in the Netherlands because he fabricated data and dozens of his studies. Three graduate students became suspicious of his actions and bravely informed the department head. Soon there after, committees at the three universities where he had worked began documenting years of fraudulent data collection by Stapel. In written statements, he admitted that at first he changed occasional data points but later he found himself typing an entire data sets to fit his and his students hypotheses (Data fabrication). The scientific journals that published his fraudulent data have retracted more than 58 articles to date according to the website retraction watch, which tracks cases of Research fraud across the sciences. Creating ___ or ___ data is clearly unethical and has far-reaching consequences. When people fabricate data they mislead others about the actual support for a theory. Fabricated data might inspire other researchers to spend time and often grant money following a false lead or to be more confident in theorist than they should be. In the case of Stapel The fraud cast a shadow over the careers of the graduate students and co-authors he worked with. Even though the collaborators did not know about or participate in the fabrication, his collaborator subsequently found many of their own published papers on the retraction list. Psychologists are concerned that Stapel's fraud could potentially harm psychologist reputation even though psychology as a field is not uniquely vulnerable to fraud. The costs were especially high for a fraudulent study that suggested a link between the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and autism. The study was discussed worldwide among frightened parents. Some parents still refuse to vaccinate their children even though the paper has been retracted from the journal the lancet because the authors admitted fraud. Even now there are measles outbreaks in the United Kingdom and the United States attributable to an adequate vaccination rates. Why might a researcher fabricate or falsify data? In many universities the reputations, income, and promotions of professors are based on their publications and their influence in the field. In high-pressure circumstances, the temptation might be great to delete contradictory data or create supporting data. In addition countering Mertons norms of disinterested Ness, some researchers become personally invested in their own hypotheses and believe that any data that do not support their predictions must be in accurate. Writing about his first instance of falsification, Stapel wrote "I changed an unexpected two into a four...I looked at the office store. It was closed. When I saw the new result, the world had returned to being logical." Unethical scientists may manipulate their data to coincide with their intuition rather than with formal observations, as a true empiricist would. Most recent cases of research fraud have been detected not by the peer review process but by people who work with the perpetrator. If colleagues or students of a researcher in the United States suspects such misconduct they may report it to the scientists institution. If the research project is federally funded, suspected misconduct can be reported to the office of research integrity, a branch of the department of health and human services which then has the obligation to investigate.

Fidelity and responsibility (APA ethical principle)

Establish relationships of trust; except responsibility for professional behavior in research, teaching, and clinical practice.

The Belmont Report: principles and applications

In 1976 a commission of physicians, ethicists, philosophers, scientists, and other citizens gathered at the ___ conference center in Eldridge Maryland at the request of the US Congress. They intensively discussed basic ethical principles researchers should follow. The commission was created partly in response to the serious ethics violations of the Tuskegee syphilis study. The contributors reported a short document called the____, which outlines three main principles for guiding ethical decision making: 1. Respect for persons 2. Beneficence 3. Justice Each principle has standard applications. The guidelines are intended for use in many disciplines, including medicine, sociology, anthropology, and basic biological research, as well as psychology.

Guidelines for psychologists: the APA ethical principles

In addition to the Belmont report, institutional policies, and federal laws, American psychologist can consult the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, written by the American Psychological Association. The broadside of guidelines covered three common roles of psychologist: has a research scientist, educators, and has practitioners. Psychological Association's in other countries have similar codes of ethics, and other professions have codes of ethics as well

Ethical standards for research

In addition to the five general principles the APA lists 10 specific ethical standards. These standards are similar to forcible rules or laws. Psychologist members of the APA who violate any of the standards can lose their professional license or maybe discipline and some other way by association. Of its 10 ethical standards, ethical standard 8 is written specifically for psychologists in the role as researchers. The other standards are more relevant to the role as therapists, consultants, and teachers.

Animal Research (Standard 8.09)

In some branches of psychology, research is conducted almost entirely on animal subjects: rats, mice, cockroaches, sea snails, dogs, rabbits, cats, chimpanzees and others. The ethical debates surrounding animal research can be just as complex as those for human participants. Most people have a profound respect for animals and compassion for their well-being. Psychologists anon psychologist to like one to protect animals from undue suffering. *Legal protection for laboratory animals:* in standard 8.09, the APA lists ethical guidelines for the care of animals in research laboratories. Psychologist to use animals and research must care for them humanely, must use as few animals as possible, and you must be sure the research is valuable enough to justify using animal subjects. In addition to these APA standards psychologists follow federal and local laws for animal care and protection. In the United States the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) outlined standards and guidelines for the treatment of animals. The AWA applies to many species of animals in research laboratories and other contexts, including zoos and pet stores. The AWA mandates that relevant research institutions have a local board called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Similar to an IRB the IACUC must approve any animal research project before it can begin. It must contain a veterinarian, a practicing scientist who is familiar with the goals and procedures of animal research, and a member of the local community who is unconnected with the institution. The IACUC requires researchers to submit an extensive protocol specifying how animals will be treated and protected. The IACUC Application also includes the scientific justification for the research: applicants must demonstrate that the proposed study has not already been done and explain why the research is important. The AWA does not cover mice, rats, and birds, but such species are included in the oversight of IACUC boards. After approving a research project, they IACUC monitors the treatment of animals throughout the research process. It inspects the labs every six months. If a laboratory violates a procedure outlined in the proposal, the IACUC or a government agency can stop the experiment, shut the lab down, or discontinue government funding. In European countries and Canada similar law apply.

Historical Examples

In the past, some researchers held different ideas about the ethical treatment of study participants. Two examples of research, one from medicine and one from psychology, follow. The first one clearly illustrates several ethical violations. The second demonstrates the difficult balance of priorities researchers my face what evaluating a studies ethics.

The Tuskeegee syphilis study illustrates three major ethical violations

In the late 1920s and early 1930s about 35% of poor black men living in the south were infected with syphilis. Because the disease was largely untreatable at the time it interfered with their ability to work, contribute to society, and climb out of poverty. In 1930 to the US public health service, cooperating with the Tuskeegee Institute, began a study of 600 black men. About 400 were already infected with syphilis and about 200 were not. The researchers wanted to study the effects of untreated syphilis on the men's health over the long term. At the time administering the treatment was a reasonable choice because of the risky and ineffective methods available in 1932. *These treatments involved infusions of toxic metals, but when they worked at all they had serious even fatal side effects. The men were recruited in their community churches and schools and many of them were enthusiastic about participating in a project that would give them access to medical care for the first time in their lives. However there is a little evidence that the men were told the study was actually about syphilis.* Early in the project the researchers decided to follow the men infected with syphilis until each one died to obtain valuable data on how the disease progresses what I'm treated. The study lasted for 40 years during which the researchers made a long series of unethical choices. *Infected men were told they had bad blood instead of syphilis. All of them were required to come to the Tuskeegee clinic for evaluation and testing but they were never given any beneficial treatment. At one point in fact the researchers conducted a painful potentially dangerous spinal tap procedure on every participant in order to follow the progression of the disease. To make sure that the men would come in for the procedure the researchers lied to them telling them it was a special free treatment for their illness.* *As the project continued 250 of them and registered to join the US Armed Forces which were then engaged in World War II. As part of the draft process the med were diagnosed again with syphilis and told to relist after they have been treated. Instead of following these instructions however the researchers interfered and kept the men from being treated. As a result they could not serve in the Armed Forces or receive subsequent G.I. benefits.* *In 1943 the PHS approved the use of penicillin for treating syphilis yet the Tuskeegee Institute did not provide information about this nuclear to the participants in the study. In 1968 PHS employee Peter Buxton raise concern with the officials at the CDC. However the researchers decided to proceed as before. The study continued until 1972 when Buxton told the story to the Associated Press and this study was wildly condemned. Over the years many of the men in the study got sicker and thousands died. Several men inadvertently infected their partners and in some cases caused congenital syphilis and their children.* In 1974 the families of the participants reached a settlement in a lawsuit against the United States government. In 1997 President Bill Clinton formally apologized to the survivors on behalf of the nation. Nonetheless the Tuskegee syphilis study has contributed to an unfortunate legacy. As a result of this study some African-Americans are suspicious of government health services and research participation.

Respect for peoples rights and dignity (APA ethical principle)

Recognize that people are autonomous agents. Protect peoples rights, including the right to privacy, the right to give consent for treatment or research, and the right to have a participation treated confidentiality. Understand that some populations may be less able to give autonomous consent, and take precautions against coercing such people

Integrity (APA ethical principle)

Strive to be accurate, truthful, and honest in one's role as a researcher, teacher, or practitioner.

Justice (APA ethical principle)

Strive to treat all groups of people fairly. Sample research participants from the same population That will benefit from the research. Be aware of biases.

Belmont plus two: Apa's five general principles

The APA outlines five general principles for guiding individual aspects of ethical behavior. These principles are intended to protect not only research participants but also students in psychology class and clients of professional therapist.* as you can tell three of the APA Principles are identical to the three main principles of the Belmont report. Another principle is Fidelity and responsibility an example of this is a clinical psychologist teaching in a university may not serve as a therapist to one of his or her students, and psychologists must avoid sexual relationships with their students or clients. The last APA principle is integrity an example of this is professors are obligated to teach accurately and therapist are required to stay current on the empirical evidence for therapeutic techniques.*

Unethical choices of the Tuskegee syphilis study

The Tuskeegee syphilis study made a number of choices that are unethical. These choices fall into three distinct categories.

2nd unethical choice of the Tuskegee syphilis study

The men in the study were harmed. They and their families were not told about the treatment for a disease that in later years of the study could be easily cured. Many of the men were a literate thus unable to learn about the penicillin cure on their own. They were also subjected to painful and dangerous tests.

Deception (Standard 8.07)

The withholding of some details of a study from participants ___ through omission or the act of actively lying to them ___ through commission. You may have heard about psychological research in which the researchers lied to participants. In the Milgram obedience study described earlier the participants did not know the learner was not really being shocked. In another study, an experimental confederate posed as a thief, stealing money from a persons bag while an unsuspecting by standard sat reading at a table. In some versions of the study, the thief, the victim, and a third person who sat calmly nearby pretending to read, were all experimental confederates. That makes three confederates and a fake crime all in one study. Even in the most straightforward study, Participants are not told about all the comparison conditions. For example, in the study in chapter 3 the children were aware that they were performing a boring task just as Batman, but they didn't know others were performing the task as themselves. All these studies contain an element of this. *In some cases researchers withheld some details of the study from participants deception through omission. In other cases researchers actively lied to participants deception through commission.* Consider healthy studies might have turned out if there had been no such ____ . Suppose the researchers had said we're going to see whether you're willing to help prevent a theft. Wait here. In a few moments we will stage a theft and see what you do. Or we want to know if you'll work harder at this boring task if you're dressed as Batman. Ready? Obviously, the data would be useless. ___ research participants by lying to them or by withholding information is in many cases necessary in order to obtain meaningful results. *Is ___ ethical, and a ___. study researchers must still uphold the principle of respect for persons by informing participants of the studies activities, risks, and benefits, The principal of Beneficence also applies: What are the ethical costs and benefits of doing the study with this, compared with the ethical costs of not doing it this way?* It's important to find out what kind of situational factors influence someone's willingness to report a theft and to test hypotheses about what motivates students in school. Because most people consider these issues to be important some researchers argue that the gain and knowledge seems worth the cost of lying to the participant. Even then, the APA principles and federal guidelines require researchers to avoid using this research designs except as a last resort and to debrief participants after the study. Despite such arguments some psychologists believe that deception undermines peoples trust in the research process and should never be used in a study design. Still others suggest this as acceptable in certain circumstances. Researchers have investigated how undergraduates respond to participating in a study that uses deception. The results indicate that students usually tolerate minor deception and even some discomfort or stress, considering them necessary parts of research. When students to find deception to be stressful, these negative effects are diminished when the researchers fully explain the deception in a debriefing session.

Balancing risk to participants with benefit to society

Was Milgram acting ethically in conducting this research? One psychologist at the time criticized the study because it was extremely stressful to the teacher-participants. Milgram relayed this observation from one of his research assistance: " I observed a mature at initially poised businessman answer the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, nervous wreck, who is rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his ear lobe and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered, oh God let's stop it. And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter and obeyed to the very end. To what extent was it ethical to put unsuspecting volunteers through such a stressful experience? *Some writers have questioned how Milgram's participants coped with their involvement later on. In an interview right after the study the participants were debriefed: that is they were carefully informed about the studies hypotheses. They shook hands with the learner, who reassured them that he was unharmed. However, in order to avoid influencing potential future participants, the debriefing never mentioned that the learner did not receive shocks. In interviews later on some participants reported worrying for weeks about the learners welfare* Milgram claimed that his results 65% obedience surprised him. Experts at this time predicted that only 1 to 2% of people would obey the experimenter up to 450 V. After the first iteration of the study, however Milgram knew what kind of behavior to expect. *Once he knew that many of the people in the study would experience anxiety and stress, Milgram might have taken steps to stop or modify the procedure yet he did not.* An ethical debate about Milgram studies must also weigh on the lessons learned, Adam Milgram himself emphasized their social impact. Some argue with the studies contributed crucial lessons about obedience to authority and the "power of the situation"- lessons we would not have learned without his research. The research may have benefited individual participants: Milgram had an associate called some of the participants at home months later to ask about their current state of well-being. Some of them felt they had learned something important. For example, one participant reported: what a palled me was that I could possess this capacity for obedience and compliance, I hope I can deal more effectively with future conflicts of values I encounter. Thus, there is a fundamental conundrum in deciding whether this research is ethical-trying to balance the potential "risks to participants and the value of the knowledge gained." In cases like the Milgram study it is not an easy decision.

Debriefing (Standard 8.08)

When researchers have used deception they must spend time after the study talking with each participant in a structured conversation. In many occasions, the researchers describe the nature Is the deception and explain why it was necessary. Emphasizing the importance of the research, they attempt to restore an honest relationship with the participant. As part of this process, the researcher describes the design of the study, thereby giving the participants some insight about the nature of psychological science. Non-deceptive studies may include a ___ session to. At many universities student participants in research receive a written description of the studies goals and hypotheses along with references for further reading. The intention is to make participation in research a worthwhile educational experience, so students can learn about the research process in general, understand how their participation fits into the larger context of theory testing, and learn how their participation might benefit others. Integration sessions, researchers might also offer to share results with the participants. Even months after the participation, people can request a summary of the studies results.

Undue Influence

influence that is asserted upon another person by one who dominates that person, such as bribing someone with money.

Common Rule

which describes detailed ways the Belmont report should be applied in research.

Animal Research (Standard 8.09) continued

*Attitudes of scientists and students toward animal research:* in surveys, the majority of psychology students and faculty supports the use of animals and research. Nationally, about 47% of Americans favor the use of animals and research, and the more science knowledge people have, the more likely they are to back it. In fact, when people read about the requirements stated in the AWA, they become more supportive of animal research. In other words, people seem to favorite animal research more if they know it protects the welfare of animal subjects. *attitudes of animal rights groups:* since the mid-1970s in the United States, some groups have assumed a more extreme position arguing for animal rights, rather than animal welfare. Animal rights groups genuinely base their activities on one of two arguments. First, they may believe animals are just as likely as humans to experience suffering. They feel humans should not be elevated above other animals. Because all kinds of animals can suffer, all of them should be protected from painful research procedures. According to this view, certain types of research with animals could be allowed, but only if they might also be permitted with human participants. Second, Some groups also believe animals should have inherent rights, equal to those of humans. These Activists draw on the principle of justice, as outlined in the Belmont report on the APA ethical principles. Animal rights activist do not believe animals should unduly bear the burden of research that benefits a different species. Animal rights groups conclude that many research practices using animals are morally wrong. The members of these groups may be politically active, vocal, and sincerely devote to the protection of animals. In a survey, Herzog concluded they are "intelligent, articulate and sincere, and eager to discuss their views about the treatment of animals. "With a scientist. Consistent with this view, Plous polled animal rights activists and found most to be open to compromise via a respectful dialogue with animal researchers. *Ethically balancing animal welfare, animal rights, and animal research:* given the laws governing animal welfare and given the Vizza Bility of animal rights arguments, you can be sure that today's research with animals in psychological science has not conducted lightly, or irresponsibly. On the contrary though research with animals is widespread, animal researchers are generally thoughtful and respectful of animal welfare. Animal researchers defend their use of animal subjects with three primary arguments. The first is that animal research has resulted in numerous benefits to humans and animals alike. Animal research has contributed countless valuable discoveries about basic processes of vision, the organization of the brain, the course of infection, disease prevention, and therapeutic drugs. Therefore as outlined in the Belmont report at APA ethical principles, ethical thinking means that research scientists and the public must evaluate the costs and benefits of research projects and term of both the subjects used and the potential outcomes. Second, supporters argue that animal researchers are sensitive to animal welfare. They think about the pain and suffering of animals and their studies and take steps to avoid or reduce it. The IACUC oversight process and the guide for the care and use of laboratory animals help in sure that animals are treated with care. Third, researchers have successfully reduce the number of animals they need to use because of new procedures that do not require animal testing. Some animal researchers even believe animal rights groups have exaggerated the cruelty of animal research and that some activists have largely ignored the valuable scientific and medical discoveries that have resulted from animal research.

Institutional review boards (Standard 8.01)

A committee responsible for ensuring that research using human participants is conducted ethically. It's is a committee for responsible interpreting ethical principles and ensuring that research using human participants is conducted ethically. Most colleges and universities such as research hospitals have an IRB. If a US institution uses federal money to carry out research projects it designated IRB is required. However, in the United States, research conducted by private businesses does not have to use an IRB or follow any particular ethical guidelines. A __ panel in the US includes five or more people some of whom must come from specific backgrounds. At least one member must be a scientist, one must have academic interests outside of the sciences, anyone must be a community member who has no ties to the institution. In addition when the ___ discusses a proposal to use prison participants one member must be recruited as a designated prisoner advocate. The ___must consider particular questions for any research involving children. In most countries,___ follow similar mandates for their composition. Before conducting a study researchers must fill out a detailed application describing their study its risks and benefits, its procedures for informed consent, and its provisions for protecting peoples privacy. The IRB then reviews each application. Different ____ have different procedures, at most universities when a study is judged to be a little or no risk the IRB does not meet to discuss it in person. Most institutions though a study that poses risks to humans or that involves vulnerable populations must be reviewed by an in person ____ meeting. Ideally, ___ oversee provides a neutral multi perspective judgment on any studies ethicality. Effective IRB should not permit research violates peoples rights, research that poses unreasonable risk, a research that lacks a sound rationale. However an effective ___ should not obstruct research, either. It should not prevent controversial but still ethical research questions from being investigated. Ideally the ___ attempts to balance the welfare of research participates and the researchers goals of contributing important knowledge to the field.

Self-plagiarism: plagiarism (8.11)

A potentially unethical practice in which researchers recycle their own previously published text, verbatim, and without attribution, in a subsequent article

The principle of respect for persons (Belmont Report)

An ethical principle from the Belmont Report stating that research participants should be treated as autonomous agents and that certain groups deserve special protection. In the Belmont report the this principle includes two provisions. First individuals potentially involved in research should be treated as autonomous agents: they should be free to make up their own minds about whether they wish to participate in a research study. Applying this principle means that every participant is entitled to precaution of informed consent: and each person learns about the research project, considers its risks and benefits, and decides whether to participate. In obtaining informed consent researchers are not allowed to miss lead people about the studies risks and benefits. Nor may they coerce or unduly influence a person into participating because doing so would violate the principle of respect for persons. Coercion is an implicit or explicit suggestion that those who do not participate or suffered negative consequences: for example a professor implying that students grades will be lowered if they do not participate in a particular study. Undue influence is offering an incentive to attractive to refuse, such as an irresistible amount of money in exchange for participating. The report notes that financially poor individuals may be easily swayed into participating if a research study provides a large payment. The second application of respect for persons states that some people have less autonomy, so they are entitled to special protection when it comes to informed consent. For example children, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and prisoners should be protected, according to the Belmont report. Children and certain other individuals might be unable to give informed consent because of not understanding the procedures involved well enough to make a responsible decision. Prisoners are especially susceptible to coercion, according to the Belmont report because they may perceive requests to participate in research as demands, rather than as invitations. All these populations should be treated with special consideration.

The principle of justice (Belmont report)

And ethical principle from the Belmont report calling for a fair balance between the kinds of people who participate in research and the kinds of people who benefit from it. This principle calls for a fair balance between the kinds of people who participate in research on the kinds of people who benefit from it. For example, I have a research study discovers that a procedure is risky or harmful, the participants unfortunately, bear the burden of that risk, but other people that was not in the study may benefit from the research results. *The Tuskegee syphilis study illustrates a violation of this principle: anybody regardless of race or income can contract syphilis and benefit from research on it but the participants in the study who pour the burden of untreated syphilis were all poor African-American men. Therefore these participants for an undue burden of risk.* When this principle is applied it means that researchers consider the extent to which participants involved in a study are representative *the kinds of people who would benefit from its results. *If researchers decided to study a sample from only one ethnic Group or only a sample of institutionalized individuals,* they must demonstrate that the problem they are studying is especially prevalent in that ethnic group or in that type of institution. *For example, it would violate the justice principle of researchers studied a group of prisoners mainly because they were convenient. However, it might be perfectly acceptable to study only institutionalized people for a study on tuberculosis because tuberculosis is particularly prevalent in institutions where people live together in a confined area.*

The principle of Beneficence (Belmont Report)

And ethical principle from the Belmont report stating that researchers must take precautions to protect participants from harm and to promote their well-being. To comply with this principle, researchers must take precautions to protect participants from harm and to insure their well-being. To apply this principle researchers carefully assess the risks and benefits of the study they plan to conduct. In addition they might consider how the community might benefit or be harmed. Well community gain something of value from the knowledge of this research is produce it? Will there be costs to the community if the research is not conducted? *The Tuskegee syphilis study failed to treat the participants in accordance with this principle. The researchers harmed participants through risky and invasive medical tests, and they harmed the participants families by exposing them to untreated syphilis. The researchers also withheld benefits from the men in the study. Today, researchers might not withhold treatments that are known to be helpful to study participants. For example, if preliminary results indicate halfway through a study that a treatment is advantageous for an experimental group, the researcher must give the participant in the control group the opportunity to receive that treatment too.* Another potential risk is having peoples personal information revealed to others. To prevent harm researchers usually make participants information either anonymous or confidential. In an anonymous study researchers do not collect any potentially identifying information, including birth names, birthdays, photos, and so on. Anonymous online surveys or even strip away the identifiers of the computer used. In a confidential study researchers collect some identifying information but prevent it from being disclosed. They may save data in encrypted form or store peoples names separately from their other data. Risks and benefits are generally easy to access when it comes to physical health, the type of measured in medical research. Is a persons health getting worse or better? Is the community going to be healthier because of this research or not? In contrast some psychological studies can expose participants to emotional or psychological harm, such as anxiety, stress, depression, or mental strain, and these might be harder to evaluate. Consider the participants in the Milgram studies, who are clearly experiencing stress. How might you assess the harm done in the situation? Because it's hard to evaluate emotional or psychological harm, it is difficult to evaluate how damaging a study like milligrams might be. However, the principle of beneficence demands that researchers consider such risks and benefits before beginning each study. As a point of reference some institutions ask researchers to estimate how stressful a study situation would be compared with the normal stresses of every day life. The other side of this balance the benefits of psychological research to the community may not be easy to access either. One could argue that Milgram's results are valuable but their value is impossible to quantify in terms of lives or dollars saved. Nevertheless, to apply this principle researchers must attempt to predict the risks and benefits of the research to both participants and the larger community.

Informed consent (Standard 8.02)

As mentioned earlier this is the researchers obligation to mention the study to potential participation in every day language and give them a chance to decide whether to participate. In most studies informed consent is obtained by providing a written document that outlines the procedures, risks, and benefits of the research, including a statement about any treatments that are experimental. In certain circumstances the APA standards Indicate that these procedures are not necessary. If a study it's not likely to cause any harm, involves a completely anonymous questionnaire, or takes place in an educational setting, written consent might not be required. Similarly when the study involves naturalistic observation of participants in low risk public settings such as a museum, classroom, or more, people can stillreasonably expect to be observed by others anyway. The individuals institution regulations determine these expectations to informed consent and those studies must be approved by an IRB. In addition researchers are always ethically obliged to respect participants rights. Obtaining this also involves informing people whether the data they provide in a research study will be treated as private and confidential. In the course of research people might report on their health status, political attitudes, test scores, or study habits-information they might not want others to know. Therefore informed consent procedures ordinarily outline which part of the data are confidential in which if any are not. If dated or to be treated as confidential, researchers agree to remove names and other identifiers. Such as handwriting, birthdays, and photographs might reveal personal data and researchers must be careful to protect that information if they have promised to do so. At many institutions confidential Aliti procedures are not optional. Many institutions require researchers to store any identifiable data in a locked area or on secure computers.

Ethical decision making: a thoughtful balance

Ethical decision making as you have learned does not involve simple yes or no decisions: it requires a ___ of priorities. When faced with a study that could possibly harm human participants or animals, researchers consider the potential benefits of research: will it contribute something important to society? Many people believe that research with some degree of risk is justified if the benefit gained from the result is great. In contrast, if the risk to participants becomes too high, the knowledge may not be valuable enough to justify the harm. Another example of this careful balance comes from the way researchers implement the informed consent process. On the one hand, researchers may want to demonstrate the gratitude and respect for participants by compensating them with money or other forms of reward. Paying participates might help in sure the samples represent a variety of populations, as the principle of justice requires, because some people might not participate in a study without a financial incentive. On the other hand, offering participants rewards that are too great could tip the balance. If monetary rewards become too attractive, potential participants may no longer be able to freely consent. Although in some cases it is easy to conduct important research that has a low degree of risk to participants, other ethical decisions are extremely difficult. Researchers try to balance respect for animal subjects and human participants, protection from harm, but if it's to society, and awareness of justice. As this chapter has emphasized, they do not weigh the factors in this balance alone. Influenced by IRB's, IACUC's, peers, and sociocultural norms, they strive to conduct ethical research that is valuable to society. Ethical research practice is not performed according to a set of permanent rules. It is an evolving and dynamic process it takes place in historical and cultural context. Researchers refine the ethical decision making in response to good and bad experiences, changing social norms and scientific discoveries. By following ethical principles, researchers make it more likely that their work will benefit, and be appreciated by, the general public.

Ethical principles in practice

Just as panels of judges interpret a countries laws, panels of people interpret the guidelines in the Belmont report. Most universities and research hospitals have committees that decide whether research and practice are complying with ethical guidelines. In the United States federally funded agencies must follow the *Common Rule: which describes detailed ways the Belmont report should be applied in research.* For example it explains informed consent procedures and ways to approve research before it is conducted. At many colleges and universities, policies require anyone involved in research with human participants to be trained and ethically responsible research. Your institution might require you to complete online training, such as the course Responsible Conduct of Research, administered by the CITI program.

Research misconduct

Most discussions of ethical research focus on protection and respect for participants, and rightly so. However, the publication process also involves ethical decision making. As an example, it is considered ethical to publish one results. If the participants have spent their time in a study, it's only fair to make the results known probably for the benefit of society. Psychologists must also treat their data and their sources accurately. This includes data fabrication and data falsification.

No matter what type of claim

No matter what type of claim researchers are investigating, they are obligated by law, by morality, and by today's social norms to treat the participants in the research with kindness, respect, and fairness. In the 21st-century, researchers are expected to follow basic ethical principles in the treatment of human and other animals. Researchers are also expected to produce research that is meaningful, helpful, and accessible to the public. This chapter introduces the criteria for evaluating whether a set of research was conducted appropriately or ethically.

Core Ethical Principles

Organizations around the world have developed formal statements of ethics. Following World War II, the Nuremberg Trials revealed the horror of medical experiments conducted on concentration camp victims in Nazi occupied Europe and resulted in the Nuremberg Code. Although it is not a formal war in any nation, the 10 point Nuremberg Code influences the ethical research laws of many countries. In addition many national leaders have signed the Declaration of Helsinski which guides ethics in medical research and practice. Within the United States, ethical systems are also based on the Belmont Report which defines the ethical guidelines researchers should follow. All of these ethical statements are grounded on the same core principles.

Plagiarism (Standard 8.11)

Representing the ideas or words of others as one's own; A form of research misconduct. Another form of research misconduct is this, usually defined as representing the ideas or words of others as one's own. A formal definition provided by the US office of sciences and technology policy, states that plagiarism is "the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit." Academics and researchers consider ___ a violation of ethics because it is unfair for a researcher to take credit for another persons intellectual property: it is a form of stealing. To avoid ___, you must cite the sources of all ideas that are not your own, to give appropriate credit to the original author. Psychologist follow the guidelines for the citation of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. When using another persons exact words, put quotation marks around the quote a text and add the page number where the quotation appeared in the original source. When you describe or paraphrase another person's ideas, you cite the original authors last name and the year of publication, but be careful not to paraphrase the original text too closely. Researchers also should not recycle their own text, or self ____. When researchers publish multiple articles in a line of research, they may end up recycling portions of the method section from previous work. But they should not repeat sentences verbatim in the introduction or discussion section. And a results section, recycling sentences is unacceptable because it means the article is presenting previously published date as if it were new. This is a serious offense not only in published work by professional researchers but also in papers students submit for college courses. Every university and college has ____ policies that prohibit students from copying the words or ideas of others without proper credit. Students who ___ in their academic work are subject to disciplinary action including expulsion in some cases

Openness and transparency

Research misconduct violates to current goals of psychological science: ___ and ____. As part of the publication process, researchers increasingly share their raw data via websites such as the open science framework. Open data upholds Mertens norms of communality, which states that science belongs to everyone. Open data supports scientific progress because other scientist can replicate published work and test their own novel hypotheses. As part of reporting a study, ___ also matters. Researchers might measure multiple variables in a study and test dozens of hypotheses. This practice is acceptable when researchers report their process transparently, describing how measured variables and statistical analysis in the method section. However, it is ethically and scientifically questionable to test multiple hypothesis and then report only the variables or results that worked, because this misleads readers about the full picture of evidence.

The Milgram obedience studies illustrate a difficult ethical balance

Social psychologist Stanley Milgram's series of studies on obedience to authority conducted in the early 1960s illustrates some of the difficulties of ethical decision making. Imagine yourself as a participant in one of Milgram's studies. You are told there will be two participants: you, the teacher and another participant, the learner. As teacher, your job is to punish the learner when he makes mistakes in a task. The learner slips into a cubicle where you can't see him and the session begins. *As the study goes on you are told to punish the learner for hours by administering electric shocks and increasingly higher intensity as indicated on an imposing piece of equipment in front of you: the shock generator.* At first while receiving the low-voltage shocks, the learner does not complain. But he keeps making mistakes on the learning task, and you are required by role of the study to deliver the shocks that are 15 V higher after each mistake. As the voltage is increased the learner begins to grunt with pain. At about 120 V, the learner shouts that the shock is very painful and says he wants to quit the experiment. At 300 votes, the learner screams that he will no longer respond to the learning task. The experimenter, sitting behind you in a white lab coat, tells you to keep delivering shocks, 15 V for each time, until the machine indicates you're delivering 450 V shocks. Whereas before the learner screams in pain with each new shock after 300 V you now hear nothing from him. You can't tell whether he is even conscious in his cubicle. If you protest the experimenter behind you says calmly continue. If you protest again the experimenter says again calmly the experiment requires that you continue or even you have no choice you must go on. What would you do now? You may believe you would have refused to obey the demands of this inhumane experimenter. However in the original study fully 65% of the participants obeyed following the experimenters instructions and delivering the 450 V shock to the learner. Only two or three participants out of hundreds refused to give the first 15 V shock. Virtually all participants subjected another person to electric shocks or at least they thought they did. Fortunately the learner was a confederate of the experimenter: he was a paid actor playing a role and he did not actually receive any shocks. But the participants did not know this, they thought the learner was an innocent, friendly man. Milgram conducted 18 or more variations of the study. Each time 40 new participants were asked to deliver painful shocks to the learner.

Beneficence and nonmaleficence (APA ethical principle)

Treat people in ways that benefit them. Do not cause suffering. Conduct research that will benefit society

1st unethical choice of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study

The men were not treated respectfully. The researchers lied to them about the nature of the participation and we have held information about the cure. In doing so they did not give the man a chance to make a fully informed decision about participating in the study. If they had known in advance the true nature of the study some might still have a greed to participate but others might not. After the men died the doctors offered a generous burial fee to the families, mainly so they could be sure of doing autopsy studies. These low income families may have thought coerced into agreeing to an autopsy only because of the large payment.

3rd unethical choice of the Tuskegee syphilis study

The researchers targeted a disadvantage to social group in the study. Syphilis affects people from all social backgrounds and ethnicities yet the men in the study were poor and African-American.

Informed consent

The right of research participants to learn about a research project, know it's risks and benefits. This goes along with the principle of respect for persons

Confidential study

a research study in which identifying information is collected, but protected from disclosure to people other than the researchers this is seen in the principle of beneficence

Anonymous study

a research study in which identifying information is not collected, thereby completely protecting the identity of participants this is seen in the principle i've beneficence

Coercion

is an implicit or explicit suggestion that those who do not participate or suffered negative consequences

Refinement

means researchers must modify experimental procedures and other aspects of animal care to minimize or eliminate animal distress.

Reduction

means researchers should adopt experimental designs and procedures that require the fewest animal subjects possible.

Replacement

means researchers should find alternatives to animal research when possible. For example; some studies can use computer simulations instead of animal subjects.