dealing w/ ethical issues

• ethical guidelines(code of conduct): the BPS regularly updates its ethical guidelines (code of conduct), the current version is the 'Code of Ethics and Conduct' (BPS, 2009) the intention of such guidelines is to tell psychologists which behaviours are not acceptable and to give guidance on how to deal w/ ethical dilemmas
• cost-benefit analysis: in a cost-benefit analysis we judge the costs of doing the research against the benefits
• cost-benefit analysis: the costs and benefits may be judged from a particular point of view where we might list distress and loss of time vs payment for participation and a feeling of having contributed to scientific research
• cost-benefit analysis: alternatively we can judge costs and benefits in terms of society at large and then can consider the value in improving people's lives vs the possibility that people may be harmed in process
• cost-benefit analysis: we can also judge costs/benefits in terms of the group to which a person belongs - when researcher is done to investigate cultural differences, the research may not harm the person but the findings may lead to biased treatment of the person cultural group (for good and bad)
• ethics committee: most institutions where research takes place have an ethics committee which must approve any study before it begins, the committee looks at all possible ethical issues raised in any research proposal and at how the researcher suggests that the issues will be dealt w/ weighing up the benefits of the research against the possible costs of the participants
• ethics committee: members of the committee often include lay people as well as experts in the field
• punishment: if a psychologist does behave in an unethical manner, such as conducting unacceptable research then the BPS reviews the research and may decide to bar the person from practicing as a psychologist, it is not a legal matter (the psychologist won't be sent to prison) = this then affects their livelihood
• ethical guidelines S: the 'rules and sanctions' approach of BPS ad APA ethical guidelines has strengths in terms of the clarity is offers
• ethical guidelines L: the BPS/APA guidelines are inevitably rather general because of the virtual impossibility of covering every conceivable situation that a researcher may encounter
• ethical guidelines L: the approach tends to close off discussions about what is right and wrong because the answers are provided
• ethical guidelines L: guidelines also absolve the individual researcher of any responsibility because the researcher can simply say 'I followed the guidelines so my research is acceptable' the Canadians take a slightly different approach they present a series of hypothetical dilemmas for psychologists to discuss
• the strength of the Canadian approach is that is stimulated debate, encouraging psychologists to engage deeply w/ ethical issues rather than just following the rules
• cost benefit analysis L: the problem w/ cost-benefit analysis is that it is difficult if not impossible to predict both costs and benefits prior to conducting a study, it is difficult to assess costs and benefits even after conducting a study, how are costs and benefits quantified ? how much does personal distress cost ?
• cost benefit analysis L: Diana Baumrind (1959) also argued that the cost-benefit approach could be said to legitimise unethical practices e.g. it suggests that deception and harm are acceptable in many situations provided the benefits are high enough, meaning that the cost-benefit approach solves nothing because you simply exchange one set of dilemmas (the ethical issues) for another
• the BPS Code of Ethics and conduct = the BPS code of ethics identified ethical issues but also related to conduct
• on informed consent: failure to make full disclosure prior to obtaining informed consent requires additional safeguards to protect the welfare and dignity of the participants
• on informed consent: research w/ children (under age 16) or w/ participants who have impairments that limit understanding and/or communication to the extent that they are unable to give their consent, requires special safe-guarding procedures
• on deception: the central principle is the reaction of participants when deception is revealed if this leads to discomfort, anger or objections from participants then the deception is inappropriate
• on protection from harm: if harm, unusual discomfort or other negative consequences for the person's future life might occur, the investigator must obtain the disinterested approval of independent advisors, inform the participants and obtain real, informed consent from each of them
• participants are asked to sign an informed consent form to indicate they have been informed and are freely consenting to take part
• informed consent how to deal w it: participants are asked to formally indicate their agreement to participant by for example signing a document which contained comprehensive information concerning the nature and purpose of the research and their role in it
• informed consent how to deal w it: an alternative is to gain presumptive consent
• informed consent how to deal w it: researchers must also offer the right to withdraw
• deception how to deal w it: the need for deception should be approved by an ethics committee, weighing up benefits (of the study) against costs (to participants)
• deception how to deal w it: participants should be fully debriefed after the study, this involves informing them of the true nature of the study, participants should be offered the opportunity to discuss any concerns they may have and to withhold their data from the study - a form of retrospective informed consent
• the right to withdraw how to deal w it: participants should be informed at the beginning of a study that they have the right to withdraw
• protection from harm how to deal w it: avoid any risks greater than experiences in every day life
• protection from harm how to deal w/ it: stop the study if harm is suspected
• confidentiality how to deal w/ it: researchers should not record the names of any participants
• confidentiality how to deal w/ it: they should use numbers of false names to represent individual participants
• privacy how to deal w/ it: do not study anyone w/o their informed consent unless it is in a public place and public behaviour (e.g. it would exclude couples' intimate moments in a park)
• informed consent L: if a participant is given full information about a study this may invalidate the purpose of the study
• informed consent L: even if researchers have obtained informed consent that does not guarantee that participants really do understand what they have let themselves in for
• informed consent L: the problem w/ presumptive consent is what people expect that they will or will not mind can be different from actually experiencing it
• deception L: cost-benefit decisions are flawed because they involve subjective judgement and the costs and/or benefits are not always apparent until after the study
• deception L: debriefing can't turn the clock back - a participant may still feel embarrassed or have lowered self-esteem
• the right to withdraw L: participants may feel they shouldn't withdraw because it will spoil the study
• the right to withdraw L: in many studies participants are paid or rewarded in some way and may not feel able to withdraw
• protection from harm L: harm may not be apparent at the time of the study and only judges later w/ hindsight