Ethical Issues and Human
Psychological Research
The aim of
Psychology is to provide us with a greater underatandin of ourselves,
and, if required to enable us to use that understanding to predict and
control our behaviour for human betterment. To achieve this
understanding psychologists often have no other choice but to
investigate human participants for valid results to be obtained.
Humans, however, not only experience physical pain and anxiety but can
also be affected mentally - in terms of embarassment or loss of self
esteem for example. Humans alos have rights of protection and
privacy above the levels granted to other animals, and so this leads us
to ethical dilemmas:
- How far
should psychologist be allowed to go in pursuing their knowledge?
- Should
humankind aim to improve itself by allowing people to be dehumanised in
the process?
- Do the
ends of the psychological research justify the means?
- Can we
ever know whether a piece of research will justify abusing the rights
of individuals befor conducting it?
The existence
of ethical constraints is clearly a serious but necessary limitation on
the advancement of psychology as a science and the major professional
psychological bodies of many countries have published ethical
guidelines for conducting research. In Great Britain, the British
Psychological Society has published the "Ethical Principles for
Conducting Research with Human Participants", which guides psychologist
to consider the implications of their research e.g. by asking members
of the target population if they would take offence to the research,
and deals with a number of methodological ethical issues.
Consent
Milgram (1963) - The participants in
Milgram's study had voluteered to participate in a study of learning,
not obedience. Having not been told of the researcher's
objectives, they did not give their infomed consent.
Bystander Intervention
Studies - Such as those conducted by Darley and Batson (the
'Good Samaritan' study) or Piliavin (subway studies) where participants
were not asked for their consent at all. However, one could argue
that people see the plight of others every day without consent.
Zimbardo et al. (1973) - The
participants in the prison simulation experiment signed a formal
'informed consent' statement specifying there would be a loss of some
civil rights, invasion of privacy and harassment.
|
Deception
Milgram (1963) - The participants were led to
believe that they were giving real electric shocks to another in an
experiment on learning rather than obedience. Ome and Holland
(1968) suggested that the participants were involved in a 'pact of
ignorance' with the experimenter - they did not really believe they
were harming anyone.
Rosenhan (1973) -
In the study 'On being sane in insane places' eight 'normal' people
gained admission to psychiatric hospital merely by pretending to hear
voices and faking their name and occupation. One might argue that
this case of deception was one that the victims were able to avoid.
Drug Testing -
Often involves the use of placebo control groups. Patients may be
given the real drug or pills that have no effect, but are not told
which they have been given. Perhaps a necessary case of
deception but what about the patients' rights to get the best care?
Craik and Tulving (1975)
- Tested Levels of Processing ideas using incidental learning - the
participants were not old they would be tested on their memory. A
minor case of deception?
|
Confidentiality
Confidentiality
is of particular imprtance in Case Studies, especially involving data
gained as part of a client-patient relationship. There are many
examples in psychology of pseudonyms being used to maintain anonymity
e.g. Genie, H.M., Anna O., etc.
|
Observational Research
Hidden
observational studies produce the most ecologically valid data but
inevitable raise the ethical issue of privacy. The
importance of this issue will be greater in certain areas of psychology
e.g. intimate behaviour in interpersonal relationships, than others,
e.g. crowd behaviour.
|
Withdrawal
Milgram (1963)
- The study abused the right of the participants to withdraw from a
psychology study - those wishing to leave were told 'you have no other
choice, you must go on'. However, the participants had the right
to leave and they were not physically restrained.
Zimbardo (1973) -
Stopped their prison simulation study after just six days instead of
the two weeks it was meant to run because of extreme reactions shown by
the participants.
|
Debriefing
Milgram (1963) -
All participants were fully debriefed and reassured after the
study. They were shown that the learner was unharmed and had not
received any shocks.
|
Protection
of participants
Milgram (1963)
- Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram's study as being
unethical because it caused distress and anguish to the
participants. One had a seizure and all participants could have
suffered psychological damage. Milgram himself commented that 'In
a large number of cases the extreme degree of tension reached extremes
that are rarely seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies'.
However, the results obtained were completely unexpected, Milgram had
asked for estimate before the study took place, and although the
participants appeared uncomfortable with their obedience, Milgram
concluded that 'momentary excitement is not the same as harm'.
Milgram argued that it was the shocking nature of his findings that
should have provoked the moral outrage.
A foolow-up opinion survey conducted a year later found that 84% were
'glad to have been in the experiement', 15% were neutral, and only 1.3%
were 'sorry or very sorry to have been in the experiment'. Around
80% of the respondents said that there should be more studies like the
Milgram study, and around 75% said that they had learned something of
personal value from their experience. The participants were examined
one year after the experiment by a psychiatrist who found no evidence
of harm.
Zimbardo et al. (1973)
- Zimbardo's prison simulation procedures were more stressful than the
volunteer students playing the prisoner role expected. A surprise
City Police arrest and processing was followed by brutal treatment from
the students playing the role of the guards, which caused psychological
stress in the form of crying, rage, and depression, and even the
development of a psychosomatic rash.
Watson and Rayner (1920)
- Conditioned a phobia of rats into an emotionally stable 11-month-old
infant, 'Little Albert', by repeatedly startling the child with a loud
noise every time a white rat was presented. The fear generalised
to other objects including rabbits, fur coats, and even facial hair,
including that on a Santa Claus mask, but he was never 'unconditioned'.
Bandura et al. (1961)
- Showed how aggression could be learnt in children through
observational learning in their Bobo Doll experiment. However, is
it right to produce aggression in children experimentally, even if they
might acquire it from their own environment anyway?
|
|