Introduction to ethical guidelines

Ethical guidelines are rules designed to protect people who take part in psychological research. These guidelines ensure that researchers treat participants with respect, maintain their wellbeing, and act responsibly throughout the study. They are created by professional bodies, such as the British Psychological Society in the UK and the American Psychological Association in the USA.

Valid consent

Valid consent means that participants freely agree to take part in a study after being given enough information about what it involves.

Key aspects of valid consent

• Informed agreement - Participants should receive details about the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits before deciding.
• Timing - Consent must be obtained before any data collection begins.
• Inclusion of all groups - Everyone, including children and vulnerable individuals, must provide consent. For those who cannot consent themselves (such as young children), a parent, guardian, or caregiver should give permission on their behalf.

Milgram's obedience study

• Background - Milgram's study on obedience to authority provides a clear case where valid consent was not fully achieved.
• Method - Participants were recruited for what they believed was a study on learning and memory, involving administering electric shocks to a learner (who was actually an actor).
• Ethical issue - They were not informed about the true aim, which was to test obedience, so their consent was not fully informed.
• Evaluation - This deception meant participants could not make a genuine choice, highlighting why informed consent is vital to prevent distress from unexpected elements.

Right to withdraw

The right to withdraw allows participants to leave a study at any point without facing pressure or negative consequences.

Key aspects of the right to withdraw

• Awareness - Researchers must clearly explain this right at the start and remind participants during the study.
• No coercion - There should be no penalties or persuasion to stay involved.
• Limitations - This right is harder to apply in covert studies where participants are unaware they are being observed, as they cannot choose to withdraw.

Piliavin et al.'s subway Samaritans study

• Background - This study examined helping behaviour in a real-world setting but failed to uphold the right to withdraw.
• Method - Researchers staged scenarios on a subway train where an actor pretended to collapse, observing whether passengers helped.
• Ethical issue - Passengers were unaware they were participants, so they could not withdraw.
• Evaluation - While the public setting minimised harm, the lack of withdrawal rights raises concerns about participant autonomy in observational research.

Minimising harm

Minimising harm requires researchers to protect participants from any physical, psychological, or emotional damage.

Key aspects of minimising harm

• Risk assessment - The potential for harm should be no greater than what someone might experience in daily life.
• Protection measures - Researchers must monitor for signs of distress and provide support if needed, such as counselling after the study.
• Vulnerable groups - Extra care is needed for children, the elderly, or those with mental health conditions to avoid exploitation.

Bandura et al.'s aggression study

• Background - Bandura's Bobo doll experiment illustrates potential harm from exposure to modelled behaviour.
• Method - Children observed adults acting aggressively towards an inflatable doll, then were placed in a room with similar toys to see if they imitated the aggression.
• Ethical issue - Exposing children to aggressive models could encourage similar behaviour in real life, potentially harming their development.
• Evaluation - Although no long-term harm was reported, this highlights the need to weigh educational benefits against risks to young participants' wellbeing.

Lack of deception

Lack of deception means participants should not be misled about the study's aims or procedures.

Key aspects of lack of deception

• Avoidance where possible - Deception, such as using actors (confederates) without informing participants, should only be used if essential.
• Justification - If deception is necessary (e.g., to prevent demand characteristics where participants alter behaviour to match expectations), a thorough debrief must follow to explain the truth.
• Impact on validity - Full disclosure might change how participants act, making results less reliable, so a balance is often needed.

Perry et al.'s personal space study

• Background - Deception was employed in this experiment on factors affecting personal space.
• Method - In one of their experiments, participants were told they were selecting a room for a private meeting, but the true aim was to study space preferences.
• Ethical issue - They were later informed the meeting was cancelled, misleading them about the study's purpose.
• Evaluation - While deception allowed natural behaviour, it underscores the need for debriefing to restore trust and clarify any misconceptions.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality involves keeping participants' personal information and data secure, so it cannot be linked back to them without permission.

Key aspects of confidentiality

• Data handling - Information should only be shared with authorised researchers and stored securely.
• Anonymity - Use codes or numbers instead of names, especially in long-term (longitudinal) studies where data is collected over time.
• Publication rules - Results should be reported in a way that does not reveal identities.

Saavedra and Silverman's button phobia case study

• Background - This study on treating a child's phobia demonstrates good confidentiality practices.
• Method - A young boy with a fear of buttons was treated using cognitive-behavioural techniques, with his progress tracked.
• Ethical strength - The boy's name was not used in reports, preserving his anonymity.
• Evaluation - This approach protected his privacy, making it a positive example of ethical data handling in sensitive cases.

Privacy

Privacy ensures that participants are not observed or studied without their knowledge in situations where they expect seclusion.

Key aspects of privacy

• Public vs. private spaces - Observations are acceptable in public areas (like parks) where people expect to be seen, but not in private settings (like homes) without consent.
• Permission requirements - For public spaces owned by others (e.g., a shop), approval from the owner or manager is needed.

Piliavin et al.'s subway Samaritans study

• Background - This observational study respected privacy due to its setting.
• Method - Helping behaviour was observed on a public subway train without participants' knowledge.
• Ethical strength - As it was a public space where observation is expected, privacy was not violated.
• Evaluation - This shows how context matters; the same method in a private setting would breach privacy.

Debriefing

Debriefing is the process of explaining the study fully to participants after it ends, addressing any concerns and ensuring they leave in a positive state.

Key aspects of debriefing

• Content - Include the true aims, results (if available), and reasons for any deception, plus contact details for further questions.
• Wellbeing check - Ask about any distress and offer support, such as referrals to professionals if needed.
• Restoration - Participants should feel as comfortable as when they arrived, with no lingering negative effects.

Andrade's doodling study

• Background - This experiment on memory and doodling included a proper debrief.
• Method - Participants listened to a recording and were either allowed to doodle or not, then tested on recall without knowing it was a memory task.
• Ethical strength - Afterwards, they were debriefed and asked if they suspected the true aim, ensuring clarity.
• Evaluation - This helped confirm no harm occurred and reinforced the value of debriefing in maintaining participant trust.