The rights and wrong about how we conduct research, which is governed by ethical guidelines set by BPS (British Psychological Society)
Fully informed consent
Participants should have knowledge of aims + procedures of research so they can decide if they want to be involved
- – May create demand characteristics and change their behaviour = not valid
How do psychologists deal with ‘fully informed consent’?
- Debrief and retrospective consent: pts told at end of study what the aim was + asked if their data can be used
- May be social pressure to say okay to use data = pts may not be happy being involved without consent
- Presumptive consent: similar group to research group is asked if they would give consent in same situation. If they say yes, presumed that research group would as well
- Careful about assuming this – people say they would be happy with a theoretical situation doesn’t mean they would if the situation was reality
Deception
Not informing the participants of the real aims of the study
How do psychologists deal with ‘fully informed consent’?
- Debrief and retrospective consent: pts told at end of study what the aim was + asked if their data can be used
- May be social pressure to say okay to use data = pts may not be happy being involved without consent
- Prior general consent: pts give consent at an early stage for a series of studies which may include deception
- Pts may agree at one point = doesn’t mean they continue to give permission (right to withdraw). General consent may be conditioned (need to agree to an investigation – to access a university course)
Right to withdraw
Participants should be aware that they can stop their involvement in research at any time – also afterwards. If participants do withdraw, this could be problematic in terms of recruiting new participants + calculating data.
How do psychologists deal with ‘right to withdraw’?
- When gaining consent at beginning of study (through consent form) + when giving standardised instructions = pts should be made aware of right to withdraw at any time
- May feel like they do not have the right (even when told they do) e.g. Milgram: pts told they could leave and still be paid but researcher criticised for suggesting that pts couldn’t stop – ‘you have no choice but to continue’.
Protection from harm
Research should not cause psychological/physical harm to pts. However, research may require distress e.g. stress research such as Ainsworth’s Strange Situation: the child is exposed to increasing anxiety. But was justified because it was a normal childhood experience + there was a cut off point for the child’s distress.
How do psychologists deal with ‘protection from harm’?
- Debrief: idea is that the pts should leave the study in as god state as they entered it
- Post research follow up – e.g. Milgram followed up pts for 2 years to make sure there was no long-term harm. Most pts were glad to have taken part + thought more similar research should be done
Confidentiality
Participants should not be individually identifiable from their data in a piece of research. Participants need to trust that potentially private info is not going to be shared beyond this. It is difficult in specialist case studies to protect confidentiality as it can be easy to work out who a pts is.
How to deal with psychologists deal with ‘confidentiality’?
- Remove all personally identifiable info from data e.g. names/addresses.
- Replace with numbers or in case studies initials/code.
Peer review: Process by which, before publication, other psychologists working in a similar field independently scrutinise the research in terms of validity, significance and originality
Role of peer review in research?
- It is important because it provides a way of checking the validity of the research and judging not only the conclusion of the study but also the research method and data
- Peers can assess whether the work is original and if it refers to other relevant research results in a wider context
- They can also make a recommendation as to whether the research paper can be published as it is or if it should be revised or rejected
- Peer review helps to make sure that any paper published in a journal has integrity to be taken seriously by other researchers and members of the general public
- It makes sure that researchers follow the same conventions when writing up research so all papers are published in the same format.