Karteikarten
Ethical Considerations
Karten in diesem Stapel (29)
- 1ETHICSMoral principles that influence the way in which research is carried out
- 2CONFIDENTIALITYA set of rules to protect the privacy of participants by not associating their names with their responses
- 3CONSENTAn ethical requirement that ensures that all participants have agreed to take part in the research
- 4DEBRIEFA discussion between participant and researcher, following an investigation, where the researcher ensures the participant will not be traumatised by the experience.
- 5DECEPTIONIn research, where participants are tricked into believing the investigation is studying something other than what it is
- 6RIGHT TO WITHDRAWParticipants should be able to leave a study at any time if they feel uncomfortable and allowed to withdraw their data.
They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw. They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to - 7PROTECTION FROM HARMResearchers must ensure that those taking part in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.
- 8MILGRAM (1963)Before ethical guidelines were put in place
Consented - not informed
Deceived about the true purpose of the study - to investigate 'memory and learning'
Right to withdraw - 35% did but experimenter prods discouraged this
No names were given in original research paper but details of participants could make it possible to identify individuals
Harm - probable, 3 full blown seizures, high levels of stress
Debriefed - 84% said they were glad to have taken part - 9BOCCHIARO ET AL. (2012)Confidentiality
Consent - sought twice - second time to ensure their data could be used
Right to withdraw
Debrief - researchers actively attempted to convey how they behaved in the study was not something of which they should feel ashamed
High level of deception
Consent was not fully informed
Psychological harm - possible, volunteered their friends to experience distress - 10PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969)No ethical guidelines at the time
Participants deceived at to why someone was collapsing
No consent
Could withdraw by getting off the train but were unable to withdraw quotes or data
Protection from harm - participants who did not help could have left with a reduced sense of self worth
No debrief - feasible through leaflets or an announcement over the public announcement system
No names or details that would have made individuals identifiable were recorded - 11LEVINE ET AL. (2001)No consent
Deceived at the genuineness of the person's needs
No right to withdraw their data
No debrief
Harm -some may have felt bad for not helping
No details of anyone published that would make them identifiable
Restrictions on approaching people - no under 18s, no groups, no one not physically able - 12LOFTUS & PALMER (1974)Ethically worthy - contributes to the debate about questioning of eyewitnesses to events
Consented
Participants knew this was a test of memory but hypothesis was not revealed to them, distracter questions used to further conceal the exact hypothesis. Necessary to ensure demand characteristics did not affect the findings
Safety films did not contain gruesome images so should not have caused harm or upset participants - 13GRANT ET AL. (1998)Conducted entirely within ethical guidelines
Informed consent obtained
Participants were briefed about the task they were to undertake and told involvement was voluntary
Fully debriefed by the experimenters as to the true purpose of the study - 14MORAY (1959)Conducted ethically
Tasks were clearly explained to participants before the study
The procedure did not put the participants under undue stress or discomfort - 15SIMONS & CHABRIS (1999)Conducted entirely within ethical guidelines
Informed consent obtained
Participants briefed about the task they were to undertake
Shown the video again to confirm there was a gorilla suited person or a woman with an umbrella in the scene - 16BANDURA ET AL. (1961)1960s - very different ethical guidelines
Teachers gave consent in place of parents - likely that parents agreed to the research when they signed up to the nursery
Children were not aware of their right to withdraw
Difficult to debrief children
Harm - aggressive role models, self esteem, anxiety
Value to society - benefits outweighed the harm - 17CHANEY ET AL. (2004)Can be assumed that ethical guidelines were adhered to
Repeated measures design - no participants missed out on the beneficial effects of the Funhaler intervention - 18KOHLBERG (1968)Can be assumed that participants consented
Right to withdraw - could have just not cooperated when he retuned 3 years later to collect further data - 19LEE ET AL. (1997)Can be assumed that ethical guidelines were adhered to and consent was obtained from parents
Unequal numbers of children from the two cultures could reflect some Canadian parents exercising their right to withdraw
Stories were accompanied by illustrations and ought not to have caused upset to the children
Children were seen individually which could have caused discomfort - 20SPERRY (1968)Conducted ethically
Participants consented
No deception
Neither harmed nor unduly stressed by the experimental tasks - 21CASEY ET AL. (2011)Conducted ethically
Consented
No deception
Neither harmed nor unduly stressed by the experimental tasks
Right to withdraw - a number of participants who had taken part in experiment 1 chose not to take part in experiment 2 - 22BLAKEMORE & COOPER (1970)Conducted within the strict ethical guidelines laid down by the Home Office for studies conducted on animals
- 23MAGUIRE ET AL. (2000)Carried out according to the British Psychological Society's (1993) ethical guidelines
No deception
Informed consent
Right to withdraw
Not negatively affected by their experience
Ethically worthy - implications for the rehabilitation of brain damaged patients - 24FREUD (1909)Pseudonym 'Little Hans' - protect his identity
Parents gave consent to publish the psychoanalysis as a research paper
Father did not seem to deceive him as to what was going on - 25BARON-COHEN ET AL. (1997)Assumed that participants gave their consent but it is unclear what they were told about the tasks they were given to do
Harm - the Eyes Task presented participants with options to choose from which may have reduced any potential harm by enabling them to give an answer each time, but they may have been concerned they were giving the wrong one
Right to withdraw - unclear if they were told, could have just stopped answering questions
Debriefing - not mentioned in article, would have meant explaining theory of mind that the results confirmed they had trouble with - 26GOULD (1982)Consent - army recruits were told nothing about the examination or its purpose
Not anonymous - had to fill in names, age, education
Protection from harm - heightened anxiety due to what they were being asked to do, and the rushed and chaotic conditions
Results would have led some men to be recommended for dangerous military placements
Justified the 1924 Immigration Act - barred 6 million Europeans from the USA 1924-1939 - 27HANCOCK ET AL. (2011)No deception regarding purpose of interviews, unclear if they knew they were being assessed for psychopathy
Volunteered to take part - consent, can be questioned as to if it was fully informed
No mention of the offenders being told they could withdraw their data
Confidentiality/anonymity maintained - 28COSTS OF CARRYING OUT UNETHICAL RESEARCHPublic lose trust in researchers
Causes psychological or physical harm to humans or animals
Impacts on participants’ behaviour due to involvement in research
May jeopardise future funding for research - 29BENEFITS OF CARRYING OUT UNETHICAL RESEARCHProgresses the understanding of psychology
Record natural and therefore ecologically valid behaviour
Reduce bias
Provide further real life applications and useful research
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- A-Level Psychology (CORE STUDIES) Karteikarten am Ethical Considerations, erstellt von Beth Tonks am 05/01/2017.
- Erstellt von
- Beth Tonks
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung
Mehr zu Research Ethics and Guidelines