What are research ethics in psychology?

Introduction

To advance knowledge about human behavior, individuals in the field of
psychology conduct research. Such endeavors involve both human and nonhuman
participants. The use of nonhuman participants is usually understood to mean that
there will be animal testing in the research. With either type of participant,
lawful conduct and efforts to protect the welfare of the research participants are
always of the utmost concern. The field of psychology, through the work of the
American Psychological Association (APA), has devised a set of general ethical
principles that apply to research to protect the participant and the data, or
information, derived from such work.

In addition, ethical guidelines are designed to protect the interests of involved others, such as students and colleagues, who may be active in the research process as assistants and coinvestigators rather than as research participants. Protections for these individuals come in the form of guidelines regarding professionalism, honesty among colleagues, proper supervision, vigilance against plagiarism, and the maintenance of appropriate professional boundaries.

Guidelines for ethical research exist to protect all involved in psychology research, the public at large, and the field of psychology as a whole.

Protecting Animal Participants

The protection of research participants is a key element of research ethics in
psychology. Separate guidelines for protections exist for nonhuman and human
participants. Animal research participants must be treated with respect and care. The research must be
purposeful and have benefits that clearly outweigh the cost of involving the
animals. Nonanimal alternatives must have been explored. The type of animal
selected must be best suited to answer the research question, based on the most
current literature. The animals used must be treated in a humane way so as to
reduce the risk of pain or suffering as much as possible. The animals must be
properly monitored to ensure that they are free from pain and suffering and kept
in good care. No work may be conducted on the animals until a research plan has
been approved by an appropriate committee overseeing animal care.

In addition, any staff members assisting with animal research must be familiar with these guidelines, as well as with all the laws and regulations involved in the conduct of this work. They must be adequately trained and supervised in the conduct of such work, which includes having knowledge of any behavioral or other indicators that suggest that an animal might be distressed or in need of health care. Further, very strict guidelines exist regarding the quality of housing provided for the animals, how animals may or may not be selected for use, and the types of experimental procedures permitted. If animal studies are conducted outside the laboratory, in the animals’ natural habitat, researchers must also follow guidelines designed to minimize disturbance of the animals and their environment.

Protecting Human Participants

Human participants must be treated with respect, and all commitments to them
must be honored. Their privacy and confidentiality
must be maintained, meaning that their participation and the
information that they reveal are kept secret, known only to the researchers and
their staff, and protected in the way in which they are presented in written
descriptions of the study. Human subjects must be exposed to as little risk as is
necessary. Research procedures should be as minimally invasive as possible.
Participants must be adequately informed about the purposes of the research and
the relative risks and benefits of participating. They are formally asked to
consent, or give permission, for their participation, a process known as
informed
consent. They must be free to withdraw from participation for any reason with
no negative consequences to them.

Some special issues deserving discussion are the use of deception, limits to
confidentiality, and use of control groups. Deception is the obscuring or withholding of
information that is vital to the experiment but that may mislead participants to
some degree. Psychologists are never to deceive participants about matters that
might affect their willingness to serve as participants, such as physical risks,
discomfort, or unpleasant emotional experiences. Psychologists also cannot use
deception unless it is absolutely necessary to the study and judged to outweigh
the costs of the manipulation. Finally, when deception is used, participants must
be debriefed about the deception as soon as possible.

Limits to confidentiality are also important. While efforts are made to keep
data and research findings separate from the identity of the research
participants, in some cases confidentiality is limited, such as when the
participant reports a plan of self-harm or harm to another person. It is the duty
of the psychologist to act on such knowledge to protect the general good by
reporting the information to the appropriate authorities or individuals.
Therefore, as part of the consent process, researchers must explain the limits of
confidentiality to potential participants.

Finally, control groups in research deserve a special mention. Control groups provide a special experimental condition in which research participants receive as little assessment and intervention as possible. These groups may be used to allow researchers to see experimentally the results of the simple passage of time or the simple effect of assessment on research participants. In research involving the treatment of mental health conditions, particularly where there are known effective treatments for the disorder in question, the use of a true control group is controversial and discouraged. Participation in research where random assignment to a control group might occur could be seen as a way of delaying or withholding treatment from someone who needs it. In such cases, researchers have had to resort to other means to establish experimental control. For instance, waiting-list controls might be used under the logic that it is typical for individuals to have to wait for treatment under normal circumstances, so doing so under an experimental paradigm does not constitute undue harm. Researchers have also employed minimal treatment controls, where a minimum level of treatment is provided to the control group. In such cases, participants might be allowed to receive the experimental treatment later if it were found to be more effective than the minimal treatment. Finally, in some cases, researchers must provide a full-fledged active treatment to participants, such as standard care, when trying to assess the utility of a new treatment strategy. In such cases, the negative consequences of receiving no care outweigh the benefits of comparing the new treatment to a no-care situation.

In addition to these issues, many provisions are related to the training of research staff and the maintenance and care of the data collected to support these general goals. Just as guidelines prohibit research on animals until the work plan has been reviewed, no research with humans should be conducted until the research plan is assessed by an institutional review board (IRB). This committee oversees the identification of risks and benefits of the research, the communication of this information to the participants, and the overall safety and ethical soundness of the research plan.

Protecting Data

Once data have been collected, the information and any files related to it must receive special protections. This is primarily important for data from human participants because of confidentiality issues, but it can also be important for animal data because of procedural and other information that may be contained in the data records or research files.

A basic consideration is that the raw data, such as data collected from a human participant, must be kept in a secure location and in a manner that protects the identity of the participant. This requirement usually means that questionnaires and other data are identified by code numbers rather than by individual participant names. In addition, any links among code numbers and participant identities must be minimized and stored in a place separate from the data or any representation of them, such as electronic files.

Data should be retained for five years after the publication of any reports so that colleagues may examine the information to determine whether the conclusions were properly pursued and represented. This is done by the assigned owner of the data, a designation usually agreed on by all senior investigators involved in the research planning. If the data are to be collected using monies from the federal government, however, the government may require a longer maintenance period, such as ten years after collection. In addition, the government may require that the data be made public for any related request, rather than only collegial requests.

Finally, prior to their presentation in research reports, the data should be verified, meaning that errors should be processed out to avoid the presentation of misleading findings. Data on discrete research questions should not be published in duplicate form to avoid misrepresenting the findings or placing them out of context. In addition, the presentation of data collected for research purposes should be limited to those purposes. A scientist may present the data for some other use, such as training or education, but, as with all presentations, care to protect the confidentiality and welfare of the research participants must take priority.

Professionalism and Publications

Another set of issues related to research ethics involves publications. For
those serving as professional reviewers, ethical guidelines apply because new
research reports are privileged information. Therefore, reviewers are bound to
treat the information reviewed as highly confidential. In deciding to serve as a
reviewer, a psychologist must acknowledge any conflicts of interest that might be
present regarding a relationship with the author, any companies connected to the
research, or any other relationships that might affect the ability to be
impartial. When a conflict exists, the potential reviewer must resign from the
process.

Similar disclosures of conflicts of interest are required of the authors of
research reports. For example, when an individual receives money from a drug
company or a health maintenance organization (HMO) to conduct a study
that could affect how that drug or that HMO is perceived, it is important for the
researcher to acknowledge that financial relationship, as well as any other
influence that the company or the HMO might have had on the findings and their
presentation in the research report. This disclosure allows for fair review of the
findings for readers.

In general, psychologists are advised to avoid taking multiple roles; this is true for those in research as well. For instance, a psychologist would not seek to enroll friends and family members in his or her own research and would be advised against becoming a stockholder in a drug company when conducting research on a drug made by that company. Such dual relationships might make it difficult to be impartial or to be seen as impartial by others in the reporting of any data collected.

A final issue regarding research ethics relates to publication credit: who is included as an author on papers and presentations as well as the order of authorship. In general, persons who substantially contribute to the production of the research report in ways that directly apply to the intellectual content should be included as authors. Typically, authorship on papers is decided before the research is started as part of the research plan. This agreement allows each person to anticipate his or her contributions and to input effort to the process fairly. Additionally, it facilitates the ownership of responsibility for the authors to ensure that all ethical guidelines for research in the field were adhered to in the conduct of the study. Typically, assurances to this effect are required by many journals in order for the report to be accepted for publication.

New Challenges

As the human population grows, so, too, do the complexities of human life and the potential for problems. The human community is no longer simply a local tribe but a global force composed of different peoples with different languages, cultural customs, histories, and resources. As communication among different peoples increases, the potential for miscommunication is likely to increase as well. Research in psychology will remain quite important as it—combined with knowledge from such fields as sociology, anthropology, and political science—will be key in the untangling of such miscommunications. Research ethics and guidelines will encourage proactive communications about research endeavors and their potential impact.

It is important to realize, however, that not all countries demand the same standard of ethics for research in general, or research in psychology more specifically, as do the legal and professional governing bodies in the United States. For the most part, the research ethics standards observed in the United States are among the highest worldwide. American researchers conducting research or collaborating in other countries may be permitted or even encouraged by local authorities to act in accord with somewhat different standards. The researchers will be encouraged to maintain the highest of standards while striving to understand and respond to the local standards. In such cases, consultation with senior colleagues is important to ensure that the issues at hand are thoroughly considered.

An example of an issue that might require consideration involves the use of
incentives to
encourage participation. For a study of health behavior, for instance, each
participant might be offered $100 for five hours of participation. By American
standards, this amount might not seem like much for that period of time. If the
study were done in a very poor country, however, this incentive could be
astronomical in relation to what most people earn in a year. Such an incentive
could cause problems that the researcher might not anticipate without the review
of a local IRB. In this example, a local IRB might recommend that they researchers
pay only $1 as an incentive, which might seem absurdly low from an American
perspective. It is in such circumstances that culture and research ethics and
methods must continue to grow to allow work to advance without causing
disruption.

Another complexity affecting contemporary psychological research is scientific
knowledge in the field of genetics and the increasing use of personal medical records and data sharing
for research purposes. For instance, one must ask what constitutes adequate
consent to participate in a research project that includes genetic testing and the
use of personal medical records. While the individual participant may weigh the
costs and benefits of participating, what about the family members? Should they be
asked to sign a release allowing the individual to give information to
researchers? This question arises because such research may expose the
participant’s entire family to problems unwanted information about health risks
and loss of privacy. The question becomes how extensive consent to participation
should be. While provisions may be written into the management of the data
collected to protect individual participants, side effects or unanticipated
consequences may arise that have deleterious effects. A scenario involving genetic
research may prompt conversations among family members about the information,
including potential miscommunications. It also might lead to accidental loss of
privacy, particularly if family members report information in a pedigree format,
in which a family tree is described. In such cases, one family member may reveal
information about other family members that those members do not want revealed and
that could expose them to unanticipated risks. These examples provide food for
thought regarding how research ethics in psychology and other areas of science
will need to grow in the future to address the complexities brought about by
modern life.

Bibliography

American
Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association. 5th ed. Washington: Author, 2008.

American
Psychological Association. Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE).
Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of
Animals. Washington: Author, 2002.

Banyard, Philip, and Cara Flanagan.
Ethical Issues in Psychology. London: Routledge, 2011.
Print.

Carroll, Marilyn
E., and J. Bruce Overmier, eds. Animal Research and Human Welfare:
Advancing Human Welfare Through Behavioral Science. Washington:
American Psychological Association, 2001.

Coolican, Hugh. Research Methods
and Statistics in Psychology. 6th ed. East Sussex: Psychology,
2014. Print.

"Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code
of Conduct." American Psychological
Association. American Psychological Association, 1 June
2010. Web. 23 July 2014.

Josselson,
Ruthellen, ed. Ethics and Process in the Narrative Study of
Lives. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1996. Print.

Kitchener, Karen S., and Sharon K.
Anderson. Foundations of Ethical Practice, Research, and Teaching in
Psychology and Counseling. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Koocher, Gerald P.,
and Patricia Keith-Spiegel. Ethics in Psychology: Professional
Standards and Cases. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1998.
Print.

Sales, Bruce D.,
and Susan Folkman, eds. Ethics in Research with Human
Participants. Washington: American Psychological Association,
2005. Print.

Street, Linda L.,
and Jason B. Luoma, eds. Control Groups in Psychosocial Intervention
Research: Ethical and Methodological Issues. Hillsdale: Erlbaum,
2002. Print.

Zucchero, Renee A. "Psychology Ethics in
Introductory Psychology Textbooks." Teaching of Psychology
38.2 (2011): 110–13. Print.