Whether they've guessed right or wrong, their beliefs can prevent researchers from getting an unbiased view of participants' thoughts and behaviors.
Researchers may disguise the purpose of the study by providing participants with a plausible "cover story" that is different from the investigation's actual purpose.
They could include "distractor" tasks or "filler" items unrelated to the question of interest.
The items prevent participants from changing their responses in ways that the experimenters are looking for.
Psychologists need to worry about more than their scientific value when designing and conducting research studies.
The ethics of these studies are important.
Although psychology follows the same basic scientific principles as other sciences, a chemist needn't worry about hurting his mineral's feelings, and a physicist needn't be concerned about the long-term emotional well-being of a neutron.
The authors of the text agree that science's consequences of ignoring crucial ethical is value-neutral.
Science is a search for the truth.
We may not all agree on which way to look for the truth is ethical.
It's acceptable to learn about brain damage by studying the behavior of people with brain damage on laboratory tasks of learning if they aren't too stressed.
We might not all agree on whether it's ethical to learn about brain damage in cats by creating small wounds in their brains and studying their responses to scary dogs.
In many cases, the question of whether research is ethical isn't clear-cut, and reasonable people will sometimes disagree on the answer.
There is a troubling example from the Tuskegee study.
A number of researchers wanted to learn more about the natural course of the disease.
The subjects of the study were African American men living in the rural areas of Alabama who had been diagnosed with syphilis.
The researchers did not inform these men that antibiotics had become available for the treatment of syphilis or that they had the disease.
The subjects didn't know they were subjects, as researchers hadn't informed them of that crucial piece of information.
The researchers hid all important medical information and treatments from the subjects.
By the end of the study, 28 men had died of the STD, 100 had died of it, 40 of the men's wives had been exposed to it, and 19 children had been born with it.
It was a heightened appreciation for protecting the rights of human subjects that came out of the terrible Tuskegee study and other ethical catastrophes in scientific research.
The study was never performed in the United States.
During the informed consent process, participants can ask questions and learn more about the study.
The award for the most ethically questionable research on humans informed consent, and we can be certain they wouldn't have agreed to participate had they published in a psychology journal, may go known they wouldn't be receiving treatment for a potentially fatal illness.
One challenge to a 1960s' study in which investigators informed consent is that some participants, such as those with Alzheimer's disease, wanted to determine the effects of extreme psychotic disorders.
A pilot told 10 people.
It's up to investigators to make sure that participants are aware of their rights.
Researchers deceived the soldiers when they lied about the study's purpose.
The flight attendant, who was "in" on the deception, handed out questionnaires studies in the history of psychology to soldiers and instructed them to place University, invited volunteers to participate in a study of the effects of punishment.
The experimenter tricked participants into believing they were administering something, and the soldiers made more painful electric shocks to another participant who made repeated errors on a learning task.
This bizarre investigation could be traced back to the influence of authority figures on obedientness, because Milgram had no interest in the effects of punishment on learning.
The true participants never make it past the IRB.
He went out of his way to explain the study's true purpose to participants and assure them that their disobedience wasn't a sign of distress.
He sent a questionnaire to all subjects after the studies were done and found that only a small percentage of them had any negative emotional effects.
Diana Baumrind argued that the study wasn't worth the knowledge it generated.
She maintained that research methods 69 full informed consent was ethically indefensible.
The subjects didn't know what they were getting into when they volunteered.
The ethics of the study continues to be debated.
We will point out that the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association affirm that deception is justified only when researchers can't have done the study without it.
IRBs have become more stringent about the need for informed consent over the years.
At the conclusion of the research session, IRBs may request a full debriefing.
In some cases, researchers use nontechnical language to explain their hypotheses.
The study becomes a learning experience for both the investigator and the subject by administering a debriefing.
The potential scientific benefits of their research must be weighed against the potential danger to participants.
The American Psychological Association published a code of ethics in 2002.
Key ethical principles are summarized in the fol owing.
Research participants should be fully informed of the purpose of the research, its expected duration, and any potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects associated with it.
Participants should be informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.
There should be a contact who can answer questions about the research.
To avoid harm to research participants, psychologists must take reasonable steps.
When deceptive techniques are used in research, participants should be aware of the deception as soon as possible.
There are research procedures that may cause physical pain or emotional distress.
Participants should be fully briefed about the true nature of the research after the study is over.
Animal research is one of the most understandable topics.
In psychology departments, the most common form of research that takes the form of producing brain damage in animals is surgery.
The majority of psychology research is done on rodents and birds, with 7 to 8 percent relying on animals.
The goal of such research is to generate ideas about how the brain relates to behavior in animals, and how these findings generalize to humans, without having to harm people.
The need for adequate housing and feeding conditions has been raised by many animal rights activists.
Others have gone to extremes that could be considered unethical, such as ransacking laboratories and freeing animals.
The Animal Liberation Front attacked several psychology laboratories at the University of Minnesota in 1999, releasing rats and pigeons and causing $2 million in damage.