Issues & Debates
Ethics: The standards that govern the conduct of researchers while conducting studies, ensuring the welfare and
dignity of participants are protected.
AO1: HUMAN ETHICS
- Ethics in human research (BPS code): Respect for others can be shown in many ways. Privacy and
confidentiality of data safeguards identity and so protects privacy (e.g the study of HM). Competency: Researchers
must be skilled and up to date in research area. Responsibility: Researchers must consider participants and
psychology in general (people could lose faith in psychology). Eg. Hofling (1966) the nurses were distressed about
their errors, people could be less willing to trust health services. Integrity: Researchers should be honest and fair
(avoid deception, give experimental and control groups in therapy studies access to most effective therapy).
- Informed Consent: Researchers must obtain informed consent from participants, ensuring they are fully aware of
the research nature, procedures, and their rights to withdraw at any time.
- Debriefing: Participants must be debriefed post-experiment, especially if deception was used. This involves
explaining the true nature of the study and ensuring no harmful effects remain.
AO1: ANIMAL ETHICS - Animals are used in psychological experiments primarily when it is impractical or
unethical to use humans. (STUDIES: PAVLOV, SKINNER)
- Animals Act 1986 Consider causes of psychological distress and physical pain in animals (e.g housing, feeding,
social companions). Social isolation and food deprivation (e.g skinners box) cause animals distress.
- Home office regulations: Compliance with the Act is monitored, researchers must show animals were killed
humanely.
- 3Rs: Replacement with non-animal alternatives, Reduction of the number ised to the minimum needed,
Refinement of procedures to minimise suffering.
- The use of animals in research must be scientifically justified. Researchers must demonstrate that their study has
enough potential to contribute valuable knowledge that outweighs the ethical costs of using animal subjects.
Social:
AO2: - Issues of informed consent, causing psychological harm and right to withdraw within obedience
research. The necessity of creating these conditions in order to study prejudice and obedience.
- Most experiments into obedience and prejudice would be considered unethical by today’s guidelines. For
example, Obedience research removes the right to withdraw as they are gradually ordered to comply.
- Both obedience and prejudice research create potential for psychological harm especially when groups put
against each other and in conflict that was purposely stimulated and encouraged.
AO3: AGAINST: Milgram’s study was very unethical, Covert observations cause deception as exp. was taken
behind a one way mirror and participants were unaware of. Sherif also deliberately induced conflict, parents asked
not to visit their children (can be seen as unethical), boys did not give informed consent, boys were decieved about
the broken water pipe and food truck breaking down. FOR: Good ethical practice by Burger (2009) Burger mitigated
the risk to participants by only taking the shocks up to 150V, screened participants to remove anyone with
emotional vulnerabilities.Debriefing followed immediately upon the end of the test.
Sherifs study - wright to withdraw was exercised when 2 boys went home in the first week, confidentiality, parents
aware that it was a psychological project and gave consent on their behalf. Events typical of an American summer
camp in the 50s and weren’t exposed to much harm and were resolved.
Cognitive:
AO2: Case studies kept anonymous (e.g HM, KF) maintains their right to privacy, if not, privacy can be violated
(Clive W). Case studies are rare and unique so sometimes overstudied which affects personal life. HM said he
enoys his testing but maybe he can’t remember previous and continuous tests being done on him. HM’s brain was
also taken and sliced into pieces for research without his family or his consent.
AO3: AGAINST: Schmolck (2002) H.M. and the other brain-damaged patients were not medically competent to
give consent. Presumptive consent from the patients' doctors. However, there is a big debate about whether H.M.'s
doctors really had his wellbeing at heart; H.M. was used as a psychological guinea-pig for his entire adult life. Much
of this was tacit consent - because H.M. didn't say "No" it was assumed he was saying "Yes" - but tacit consent is
incompatible with the principle of respecting autonomy and dignity. FOR: Baddeley Participants were in the subject
pool at uni so they volunteered and consent given. Results of individual participants were kept confidential.
Participants were fully briefed on the tasks they would perform.
, Biological: AO2+AO3: Animals used for invasive, harmful procedures that would be unethical for humans. PET
scans go against protection of participants due to injection of radio active chemicals for extended period of time and
enclosed space in Raine study. Control group for Raine’s study were done for medical purposes (not just study).
Criminals wished to gather evidence (consent given). After brain scans, participants may leave with knowledge that
changes their view of themselves which goes against BPS code of Responsibility. Maintaining the anonymity of
participants was crucial, given their criminal records and the study’s sensitive nature. Brendgen et al. (2005)
obtained consent from parents and teachers.
Learning: AO2: Ethical issues with use of animals, issues with Watson and Rayner and children in Bandura
study. Little Albert was also never unconditioned. Harmful behaviour to animals (Skinner electrified rats, Pavlov
restricted food). W&R deliberately distressed Little Albert. Badura caused distress and frustrated children by
exposing them to aggressive models. Skinner gave shocks to rats, exp. Should avoid or minimise stress and
suffering for all living animals. FOR: W+R Study chose a baby they thought would not be too upset by the
study.They took care to let him play happily with blocks alongside the conditioning and they took breaks between
the phases. Albert's mother gave consent and was present the whole time. Mother withdrew Albert from the study.
Albert B. was a false name. Bandura obtained consent from the children's nursery teachers, who were present in
the observation room during the study. Phobias - Flooding raises serious ethical issues, as it involves trauma.
Clinical: Testing effectiveness of therapies – ppts may be vulnerable. Also control groups may be withheld from
treatment. Rosenhan’s study unethical – patients at hospital there to get help, not to be part of a study for example.
Use of Placebo is deceiving. AO3: FOR: Rosenhan Study was about ethics in a way, being focused on the harm
diagnosis can do, so the aims were ethical. One of the pseudo patients and he did not ask others to do what he
would not do, obtained fully informed consent from pseudo-patients. Confidentiality, no staff or hospitals were
named. Told the hospital manager and chief psychologist of what he was doing. For all pseudo patients, Rosenhan
prepared lawyers who would intervene to get them out of hospitals if they requested it. AGAINST: Deceived
hospital staff. The second part where staff doubted the patients' sanity may have caused harm. Doctors and nurses
could not give consent or exercise the right to withdraw. Crisis of public confidence with mental health diagnosis, so
some people may not have seeked help (against BPS Responsibility). Pseudo patients were put in harmful
environment where they experienced tension and stress
Crime: AO2+AO3 There are ethical issues related to use of psychological formulation. 15 proficiency standards
are followed by forensics and clinical psychologists working with offenders (e.g exercising competent judgements,
up-to-date knowledge) This ensures that offenders are dealt with in a manner that is safe, appropriate aand
involves professional expertise. AGAINST: Loftus and Palmer may have caused potential distress caused by
watching crash footage could be traumatic especially for people who have depression.
Practical issues in design and implementing research
AO1: Practical issues impact on choices that researchers make when selecting measures in their research to meet
the aims of a study.
- Gathering a sample, such as random, volunteer or opportunity, would depend on the access a researcher has to
the target population.
- Deciding what apparatus or materials to use in a study could be an issue that depends on the time or money
available to a researcher.
- Ethical issues such as gaining fully informed consent would need to be considered against potential for causing
demand characteristics that impact on the findings.
Social: Practical issues when researching prejudice, such as social desirability or demand characteristics. Issues
with interviews/self-reports when measuring obedience/prejudice. Importance of sampling ppts into conditions.
Sherif – naturalistic observation so high in ecological validity. Stratified sampling, variables (ie situational) needed
controlling and data was subjective. Milgram - The use of a shock generator and the scripted interaction required
meticulous setup and calibration to maintain the illusion of reality. Burger - Adhering to modern ethical standards
meant that the replication could not recreate the conditions of the original experiments exactly, potentially affecting
the results. Complicated participant recruitment and selection.
Ethics: The standards that govern the conduct of researchers while conducting studies, ensuring the welfare and
dignity of participants are protected.
AO1: HUMAN ETHICS
- Ethics in human research (BPS code): Respect for others can be shown in many ways. Privacy and
confidentiality of data safeguards identity and so protects privacy (e.g the study of HM). Competency: Researchers
must be skilled and up to date in research area. Responsibility: Researchers must consider participants and
psychology in general (people could lose faith in psychology). Eg. Hofling (1966) the nurses were distressed about
their errors, people could be less willing to trust health services. Integrity: Researchers should be honest and fair
(avoid deception, give experimental and control groups in therapy studies access to most effective therapy).
- Informed Consent: Researchers must obtain informed consent from participants, ensuring they are fully aware of
the research nature, procedures, and their rights to withdraw at any time.
- Debriefing: Participants must be debriefed post-experiment, especially if deception was used. This involves
explaining the true nature of the study and ensuring no harmful effects remain.
AO1: ANIMAL ETHICS - Animals are used in psychological experiments primarily when it is impractical or
unethical to use humans. (STUDIES: PAVLOV, SKINNER)
- Animals Act 1986 Consider causes of psychological distress and physical pain in animals (e.g housing, feeding,
social companions). Social isolation and food deprivation (e.g skinners box) cause animals distress.
- Home office regulations: Compliance with the Act is monitored, researchers must show animals were killed
humanely.
- 3Rs: Replacement with non-animal alternatives, Reduction of the number ised to the minimum needed,
Refinement of procedures to minimise suffering.
- The use of animals in research must be scientifically justified. Researchers must demonstrate that their study has
enough potential to contribute valuable knowledge that outweighs the ethical costs of using animal subjects.
Social:
AO2: - Issues of informed consent, causing psychological harm and right to withdraw within obedience
research. The necessity of creating these conditions in order to study prejudice and obedience.
- Most experiments into obedience and prejudice would be considered unethical by today’s guidelines. For
example, Obedience research removes the right to withdraw as they are gradually ordered to comply.
- Both obedience and prejudice research create potential for psychological harm especially when groups put
against each other and in conflict that was purposely stimulated and encouraged.
AO3: AGAINST: Milgram’s study was very unethical, Covert observations cause deception as exp. was taken
behind a one way mirror and participants were unaware of. Sherif also deliberately induced conflict, parents asked
not to visit their children (can be seen as unethical), boys did not give informed consent, boys were decieved about
the broken water pipe and food truck breaking down. FOR: Good ethical practice by Burger (2009) Burger mitigated
the risk to participants by only taking the shocks up to 150V, screened participants to remove anyone with
emotional vulnerabilities.Debriefing followed immediately upon the end of the test.
Sherifs study - wright to withdraw was exercised when 2 boys went home in the first week, confidentiality, parents
aware that it was a psychological project and gave consent on their behalf. Events typical of an American summer
camp in the 50s and weren’t exposed to much harm and were resolved.
Cognitive:
AO2: Case studies kept anonymous (e.g HM, KF) maintains their right to privacy, if not, privacy can be violated
(Clive W). Case studies are rare and unique so sometimes overstudied which affects personal life. HM said he
enoys his testing but maybe he can’t remember previous and continuous tests being done on him. HM’s brain was
also taken and sliced into pieces for research without his family or his consent.
AO3: AGAINST: Schmolck (2002) H.M. and the other brain-damaged patients were not medically competent to
give consent. Presumptive consent from the patients' doctors. However, there is a big debate about whether H.M.'s
doctors really had his wellbeing at heart; H.M. was used as a psychological guinea-pig for his entire adult life. Much
of this was tacit consent - because H.M. didn't say "No" it was assumed he was saying "Yes" - but tacit consent is
incompatible with the principle of respecting autonomy and dignity. FOR: Baddeley Participants were in the subject
pool at uni so they volunteered and consent given. Results of individual participants were kept confidential.
Participants were fully briefed on the tasks they would perform.
, Biological: AO2+AO3: Animals used for invasive, harmful procedures that would be unethical for humans. PET
scans go against protection of participants due to injection of radio active chemicals for extended period of time and
enclosed space in Raine study. Control group for Raine’s study were done for medical purposes (not just study).
Criminals wished to gather evidence (consent given). After brain scans, participants may leave with knowledge that
changes their view of themselves which goes against BPS code of Responsibility. Maintaining the anonymity of
participants was crucial, given their criminal records and the study’s sensitive nature. Brendgen et al. (2005)
obtained consent from parents and teachers.
Learning: AO2: Ethical issues with use of animals, issues with Watson and Rayner and children in Bandura
study. Little Albert was also never unconditioned. Harmful behaviour to animals (Skinner electrified rats, Pavlov
restricted food). W&R deliberately distressed Little Albert. Badura caused distress and frustrated children by
exposing them to aggressive models. Skinner gave shocks to rats, exp. Should avoid or minimise stress and
suffering for all living animals. FOR: W+R Study chose a baby they thought would not be too upset by the
study.They took care to let him play happily with blocks alongside the conditioning and they took breaks between
the phases. Albert's mother gave consent and was present the whole time. Mother withdrew Albert from the study.
Albert B. was a false name. Bandura obtained consent from the children's nursery teachers, who were present in
the observation room during the study. Phobias - Flooding raises serious ethical issues, as it involves trauma.
Clinical: Testing effectiveness of therapies – ppts may be vulnerable. Also control groups may be withheld from
treatment. Rosenhan’s study unethical – patients at hospital there to get help, not to be part of a study for example.
Use of Placebo is deceiving. AO3: FOR: Rosenhan Study was about ethics in a way, being focused on the harm
diagnosis can do, so the aims were ethical. One of the pseudo patients and he did not ask others to do what he
would not do, obtained fully informed consent from pseudo-patients. Confidentiality, no staff or hospitals were
named. Told the hospital manager and chief psychologist of what he was doing. For all pseudo patients, Rosenhan
prepared lawyers who would intervene to get them out of hospitals if they requested it. AGAINST: Deceived
hospital staff. The second part where staff doubted the patients' sanity may have caused harm. Doctors and nurses
could not give consent or exercise the right to withdraw. Crisis of public confidence with mental health diagnosis, so
some people may not have seeked help (against BPS Responsibility). Pseudo patients were put in harmful
environment where they experienced tension and stress
Crime: AO2+AO3 There are ethical issues related to use of psychological formulation. 15 proficiency standards
are followed by forensics and clinical psychologists working with offenders (e.g exercising competent judgements,
up-to-date knowledge) This ensures that offenders are dealt with in a manner that is safe, appropriate aand
involves professional expertise. AGAINST: Loftus and Palmer may have caused potential distress caused by
watching crash footage could be traumatic especially for people who have depression.
Practical issues in design and implementing research
AO1: Practical issues impact on choices that researchers make when selecting measures in their research to meet
the aims of a study.
- Gathering a sample, such as random, volunteer or opportunity, would depend on the access a researcher has to
the target population.
- Deciding what apparatus or materials to use in a study could be an issue that depends on the time or money
available to a researcher.
- Ethical issues such as gaining fully informed consent would need to be considered against potential for causing
demand characteristics that impact on the findings.
Social: Practical issues when researching prejudice, such as social desirability or demand characteristics. Issues
with interviews/self-reports when measuring obedience/prejudice. Importance of sampling ppts into conditions.
Sherif – naturalistic observation so high in ecological validity. Stratified sampling, variables (ie situational) needed
controlling and data was subjective. Milgram - The use of a shock generator and the scripted interaction required
meticulous setup and calibration to maintain the illusion of reality. Burger - Adhering to modern ethical standards
meant that the replication could not recreate the conditions of the original experiments exactly, potentially affecting
the results. Complicated participant recruitment and selection.
