Ethics Guidelines

p {margin: 0; padding: 0;} .ft00{font-size:21px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft01{font-size:60px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft02{font-size:28px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft03{font-size:24px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;} .ft04{font-size:24px;font-family:ArialMT;color:#000000;} .ft05{font-size:24px;font-family:ArialMT;color:#0000ff;} .ft06{font-size:24px;font-family:Arial;color:#660000;} .ft07{font-size:24px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;} .ft08{font-size:37px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft09{font-size:24px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#ffffff;} .ft010{font-size:21px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft011{font-size:28px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft012{font-size:21px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#006fbf;} .ft013{font-size:28px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft014{font-size:10px;font-family:.SFUI;color:#808080;} .ft015{font-size:10px;font-family:.SFUI;color:#808080;} .ft016{font-size:60px;line-height:73px;font-family:LatoLatin;color:#202122;} .ft017{font-size:24px;line-height:30px;font-family:ArialMT;color:#000000;} Reflect in ePortfolio Download Print Langston, Research Methods, Notes 4 -- Ethics(Ch. 4) You have viewed this topic Last Visited Sep 15, 2023 8:08 AM I. Goals A. Ethics Guidelines B. Researcher Ethics II. Ethics Guidelines A. The Belmont Report The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research released the Belmont Report in 1979. The reportoriginated in response to some serious ethical violations in research (we will see examples of this in the Try It for Yourself section below). The TuskegeeSyphilis study was a particularly egregious case (you can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment ). Basically, African American men with syphilis were recruited for a study to find out what would happen if the disease went untreated. The study continued even after atreatment was readily available, and the men participating in the study were deceived into thinking they were being cared for and were encouraged not toseek other treatment. The Belmont Report (you can read it here: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html ) identified three ethical guidelines that should govern human participants research: 1. Respect for persons . This has two concepts: a. Respect for autonomy. Let people make their own decisions, but make sure those decisions are properly informed. b. People with diminished autonomy (e.g., prisoners) need extra protection. 2. Beneficence . The goal of research is to increase the greater good so research should do no harm and maximize benefits. 3. Justice . The burdens and benefits of research should be shared equally. The participants in research should come from groups that could reasonably be expected to get the benefits. These principles form the foundation of the ethics regulations that govern most psychology research. B. The Common Rule Research with human participants in the United States is mostly regulated by the Common Rule (that grew out of the Belmont Report). It is called theCommon Rule because all federal agencies that fund human participants research (except the FDA) follow these regulations. This makes it easier forresearchers to comply with the regulations, and provides a single process for most research projects to get ethics review. The Common Rule provides guidelines for ethics reviews of research. All funded research with human participants has to be reviewed; many institutionsextend this review to all research. The institution has an Institutional Review Board ( IRB ) made up of people from a variety of backgrounds, including a person who does not do research (non-scientist) and a community member (the regulations define the IRB membership requirements ). The IRB is tasked with reviewing all research at an institution. You can look at MTSU's IRB page here: https://www.mtsu.edu/irb/ . You can look also at the regulations on the Office for Human Research Protections web site. There are three levels of IRB review depending on the risk involved in the research. 1. Exempt research .This research has minimal risk and falls into a specific set of categories defined in the regulations ( exempt categories ). "Exempt" in this case means "exempt from continuing review;" these projects still need an initial determination decision to verify that the research fits the proposed category.Once the determination is made, the research can continue without further oversight unless something happens to warrant IRB involvement. 2. Expedited review . Minimal risk research that falls into a specific set of categories can undergo an expedited review process by a single member of the IRB ( expedited review categories ). The expedited process can only be used to approve research. If the research does not appear to meet the requirements for approval, the full committee has to make that decision. 3. Full committee review . Research that has some degree of risk has to be reviewed at a full IRB committee meeting (at least half the members must be present; the non-scientist has to be one of the people there). The committee meets once a month, so this process is slower than the one for exempt orexpedited reviews. IRB review requires making a series of determinations about the research. The task of the reviewer/committee is to verify that each of the required parts ofthe ethical guidelines has been met. The review requirements are part of the federal regulations. Informed consent is an essential part of the research process, and informed consent forms and procedures are very carefully reviewed. C. APA guidelines The American Psychological Association has a detailed set of ethical principles ( APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct ). These also provide guidance for the conduct of psychology research with human participants. D. Synthesis We can put all of these rules together and come up with a list of specific things that a researcher should do/not do in research with human participants. Ithink it would be useful for you to try to generate this list before we discuss it. To do that, let's review one of the most famous experiments in psychology:Milgram's research on obedience. Milgram was motivated by the fact that nazi war criminals repeatedly denied responsibility for their actions because theywere following orders. Milgram wanted to know the circumstances under which an ordinary person would obey an authority figure and do harm to anotherperson. Milgram (1963; Milgram_1963.pdf ) built the shock machine in Figure 4.1 and told participants it would be used to see the effect of punishment on learning. Figure 4.1. The shock machine from Milgram (1963; Archives of the History of American Psychology, The University of Akron). A learner would be presented a list of word pairs and then try to remember them when cued with the first word. If they made a mistake, the teacher wouldgive a shock, and move higher up the list of switches each time. The learner was not really being shocked, but was responding according to a script to see ifthe teacher would refuse to administer any more shocks. The pressure to stop increased as the study progressed. In a later study, the learner said he had aheart condition before the study started, and then complained that his heart was bothering him and he wanted to stop. As the shocks intensified, thelearners would scream out in pain and eventually stop responding all together. In Milgram's first study, 26 of the 40 participants shocked to the end. The firstdefections happened at 300 volts, or 20 switches from the start. The table of results is in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2. Table of results from Milgram (1963, Table 2, p. 376). This study raised a lot of ethical questions. As Milgram (1963) noted "there were striking reactions of tension and emotional strain" (p. 377). Milgram quotedan observer as saying "I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reducedto a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse" (p. 377). Baumrind (1964; Baumrind_1964.pdf ) provided a critique of both Milgram's (1963) ethics and the effect of the experimental procedures on the results. Before we consider the ethical guidelines that we will develop from this discussion, ask yourself this: Could Milgram's (1963) research be replicated in theera of IRB review of research ethics? In fact, Burger (2009; Burger_2009.pdf ) did replicate Milgram's study. Before looking at Burger's article, complete comprehension check 4.1 to suggest modifications to Milgram's procedure that would make the research ethical (if you don't think it can be done, discussthat). After you look at Burger's article, you can evaluate your answers and add those to your post. Comprehension check 4.1 Before looking at my list of specific rules below, complete comprehension check 4.2 to list what you think are specific guidelines that should be followed inpsychology research. Comprehension check 4.2 Here are some specific rules that you can derive from the sources above: 1. The investigator is responsible for ethics. This includes an assessment of risks and a judgment that the research has some value. After IRB approval,only the investigator will have first-hand knowledge of what is happening and whether the research presents more risk than was expected. Milgram (1963)originally thought that nobody would shock very far, and described the tension experienced by the participants as "unexpected." Once he saw that there wasa problem, he should have stopped. Today, a researcher would be expected to stop and notify the IRB. 2. Participants should be volunteers (nobody should be forced to participate; nobody should be tricked into participating). This is especially problematicwhen dealing with people who may have diminished autonomy. If there are inducements (e.g., payment), then they should be proportional to the effortexpended and not so valuable that people might feel compelled to participate. 3. Participants should give informed consent. Here are the required elements of consent ( from OHRP's website ). a. A statement that this is research. b. A description of risks or discomforts. c. A description of benefits (to the participant themselves). d. Alternative procedures (if applicable). e. A description of how the records will be kept confidential. f. If more than minimal risk, what participants can do if they experience harm. g. Contact information so participants can ask questions. h. A statement that participation is voluntary and they can withdraw at any time. i. A description of what will happen to identifiable information about them (if there is any). j. Additional items as needed. The MTSU consent form templates available in the forms section of the IRB page will guide you through the process of putting together a consent form if you do a research project. 4. Participants have the right to stop at any time without losing any credit or reward earned up until that time. You can't tell them things like “You mustcontinue.” If they want out, that's it. 5. You should do no harm. Participants should be in the same condition after your experiment that they were in before. If there is the potential for harm, thenyou should provide some resources for correcting it. 6. Debriefing. Participants should be told after the experiment exactly what they did and what you were looking for. If they have questions, you have toanswer them. If any harm might have been done, you have to correct it. 7. Confidentiality/Anonymity. Participants have the right to have their name kept separate from any data they produce and to be anonymous (nobody canknow they participated). This also helps the researcher because it encourages honest responding about topics that might be sensitive. 8. Special problem: Deception. Sometimes, in order to do what you want to do you have to deceive participants. But, that violates the principles above. Inthis case, you have to weigh the benefits of the experiment (for participants) against the risks (for participants). To the extent that it's possible, deceptionshould be minimized. If you must use deception, there are some rules the IRB will consider: a. There is no other way to get the data. b. The deception will not influence the participant's ability to asses risk. c. The deception is cleared up as soon as possible after the research is completed (ideally during debriefing). You might review this list against the list the class generated in comprehension check 4.2. Did you think of everything on my list? Did you think of things thatare not on my list? Try It for Yourself The article that launched the modern research ethics movement was published in The New England Journal of Medicine by Beecher (1966; Beecher_1966.pdf ). Beecher noted a number of studies from the medical literature that were problematic. In his opening paragraph he said "evidence is at hand that many of the patients in the examples to follow never had the risk satisfactorily explained to them, and it seems obvious that further hundreds havenot known that they were the subjects of an experiment although grave consequences have been suffered as a direct result of experiments described here"(p. 367). As you can see, even before the Belmont Report, researchers were aware of the way participants should be treated, but did not always do it. I encourage you to review Beecher's (1966) article. It uses medical terms, and you may not know all of them, but the brief listing of so many studies in whichpeople were permanently harmed or killed without their consent brings home the point of the Belmont Report. Beecher tried to organize the studies intomedical categories, but one study was so bad he had to use the category "Bizarre study" (p. 372). Here is an example: "Artificial injection of hepatitis wascarried out in an institution for mentally defective children in which a mild form of hepatitis was endemic" (p. 371). The researchers felt that since theinstitution's sanitation was so unsound, they might as well give the children the disease to better study its course. Note that their response was to give thechildren the disease instead of cleaning up the practices at the institution. Why is Beecher (1966) so important? Because it highlights one of the most important things about research ethics: You are responsible for ethical behavior.Beecher wasn't the author of these studies, he wasn't on an IRB (they didn't even exist yet), but he did not sit idly by. He brought these practices to light andmade strong recommendations for ethics going forward. The Tuskegee Syphilis study didn't end after 40 years of letting people die because the researchersdecided that it was unethical. A whistleblower named Peter Buxtun leaked the study to the media, resulting in the Belmont Report, Common Rule, and IRBresearch oversight. Now it's your turn! I have two sets of articles below. The first in each set is the original experiment. You have a head start because I picked these articlesbased on concerns that they were unethical. Choose one (feel free to look at both of them), and review it against the principles of the Belmont Report andthe specific rules listed above. What are the violations? Then, read the critique (and the researchers' response if there is one). This critique of the research study's ethics appeared in the literature close in time tothe original research. Which Belmont Report principles and rules are the authors of the critiques citing? Compare your answers to theirs to evaluate how youdid. Personal Space Invasions in the Lavatory: Suggestive Evidence for Arousal Original article: Middlemist et al. (1976; Middlemist,_Knowles,_&_Matter_1976.pdf ). Critique: Koocher (1977; Koocher_1977.pdf ). Response: Middlemist et al. (1977; Middlemist,_Knowles,_&_Matter_1977.pdf ) Ubiquitous Watergate: An Attributional Analysis Original article: West et al. (1975; West,_Gunn,_&_Chernicky_1975.pdf ). Critique: Cook (1975; Cook_1975.pdf ). Add your critique and your comparison of your critique to the one in the literature to the discussion forum Notes 4 Try It for Yourself comprehension check E. Terms 1. The Belmont Report2. Respect for persons3. Beneficence4. Justice5. The Common Rule6. IRB7. Exempt research8. Expedited review9. Full committee review Comprehension check 4.1 evaluation : The answer depends on your choices, so this will be evaluated in the discussion board. Comprehension check 4.2 evaluation : Compare your answer to my list to see how you did. III. Researcher Ethics We touched on this topic in our discussion of the scientific attitude (Notes 2). We can make it more formal here. There are things you as the researcher areobligated to do, and they are outlined in the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . Here are the highlights: A. Do not fake data. Report expectations and results honestly. B. If you find errors in your published work, report those. C. Do not plagiarize. D. Assign credit for work fairly and honestly. It is especially important for professors and advisors not to take credit for their students' work. E. Do not publish the same data twice. F. Share data and materials to support re-analysis and replication. G. Be an ethical reviewer (including respecting other people's ownership of their ideas). Langston Research Methods Notes 4 Research Methods - PSY-3070… TH TaLaija Hill Course Home Content Examity Zoom Videos My Evaluations ePortfolio Assessments Communica ! on Help Table of Contents Langston, Research Methods, Notes 4 -- Ethics Langston, Research Methods, Notes 4 -- Ethics (Ch. 4) Activity Details 10/3/23, 2 : 58 PM Page 1 of 1