T F 9。 Those people who never mention suicide are more likely to
actually mit the act than individuals who occasionally
discuss it。
T F 10。 One of the difficulties in predicting suicides is that they are
often mitted without warning。
425
EVALUATION AND RESEARCH ETHICS
OBJECTIVES
1。 To acquaint students with the ethical issues surrounding research with human subjects。
2。 To consider the perspective of prospective investigators and the institutional review boards that are
designed to minimize or prevent harmful research procedures。
3。 To create a role…playing situation that vividly illustrates the review process for use of subjects in
research。
OVERVIEW
The same research procedures that can lead to helpful gains in knowledge may also represent a source of
danger to the individuals who serve as subjects。 The power of the researcher and of the scientific
establishment relative to that of their subjects has been balanced in recent years by the creation of
institutional review boards （IRBs）。 These peer review mittees have established evaluation procedures
that protect the welfare of human and animal subjects。 How does evaluation of the ethics of research
operate？ What is the process by which an individual investigator submits a research proposal to a
university IRB for its evaluation？ In this section we will：
1。 Begin by discussing instances of research with unacceptable risks and questionable ethics （see
Additional Resources）。
2。 Discuss the essential concepts of “at risk；” “invasion of privacy；” “deception；” “informed consent；”
“the gain/loss notion of relative ethics；” and the raising of consciousness about ethical
considerations。
3。 Briefly describe the review…evaluation procedure now required of prospective researchers in an
academic setting。
4。 Briefly describe the importance to society of promoting scientific progress and the career of the
individual researcher （in order to establish social and personal values that oppose “undesirable”
constraints）。
5。 Conduct the demonstrations on role…playing in which students take both sides in the institutional
evaluation of psychological research proposed by independent investigators。
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Ethical questions often arise about the conduct of scientific research because it may intervene in the lives of
participants who are subject to its procedures…even if only for a short time。 Decisions made by investigators
solely based on scientific or pragmatic considerations may be harmful to research subjects。 The subjects are
usually not in a position to have advance knowledge of what will be done to them or to refuse exposure to
procedures unacceptable to them。 Much research takes place in institutional settings where there are strong
pressures on potential subjects to ply with authorities； such as in prisons； the military； factories；
summer camps； schools； and colleges。
Research involving human subjects raises ethical and legal issues of sufficiently serious and widespread
concern that a prehensive mechanism has been developed through which the judgments of researchers
are reviewed。 Under the National Research Act of 1974； institutions applying for funds must establish an
IRB to review research conducted by that institution。 Of course； many institutions and departments already
had established IRBs prior to this act； including most psychology departments； which supported “Human
Subject mittees；” to review psychological research。 The IRB’s goals； then； are to determine whether
subjects will be placed at risk； and； if so； whether the risks are outweighed by the benefits to the subject and
the importance of the knowledge being sought。 In addition； it is necessary to determine if the rights and
426
welfare of the subjects are protected and if “legally effective informed consent” will be obtained by adequate
and appropriate means。
The purpose of the evaluation procedure is to protect the welfare of human subjects。 This includes
protection against undue or unnecessary invasion of privacy； disrespect for human dignity； and physical；
physiological； or social harm。
In this demonstration we want students to discuss research ethics by having them participate in several
role…playing scenarios in which experimenters defend their proposals before an IRB。 To give them good
material to work with； we have prepared proposals modified from several experiments that have proven
over the years to generate a fair amount of controversy。
PROCEDURE
Materials
Four research proposal summaries of relevant parts of psychological experiments。 Each of them includes
procedures that raise questions about its ethics。 The proposals are based on research by：
1。 Sherif and associates on intergroup conflict among children in a summer camp （not usually
described in the literature as ethically questionable）。
2。 Freedman and Fraser’s foot…in…the…door pliance field experiment。
3。 Sheridan and King’s modification of Milgram’s obedience study
4。 Zimbardo’s prison simulation。
Subjects
15…25 students are ideal。 Four are selected to act as university research professors； each advocating
approval of his or her proposal。 The rest of the class serves as the IRB （see variations for a possible third role
for 2 impression management observers）。
Time Required for Role…Playing
20…45 minutes for the presentation； questioning and evaluation of the four proposals （5…15 minutes for each
depending on the intensity and detail of the role…playing）。
Time Required for Discussion
10…20 minutes。
Method
1。 Decide which of the research proposals will be presented to the class IRB； depending on your time
schedule。 You may want to add one or more of your own choosing or use only a few of ours。
2。 Preselect the research investigators who will argue for their proposals； either assigning them the
previous week to bee familiarized with the specific proposals or choosing students who arrive
early to the section。 In a large class； you may want to have pairs of students be a research team。
3。 Explain the role…playing scenario。 The researchers； eager to begin their research as soon as possible
with minimal modifications； have submitted a proposal for the experiment to the human subjects
mittee for review。 They have received a reply from the mittee stating that there are some
ethical （and possibly other） questions about the study； and that they have been requested to appear
before the mittee to defend their proposal and presentation strategy。 They should attempt to
defend it as best they can； given the material。 You might even inform them that their entire career
and everything they’ve worked for depends on getting this study through the mittee （with
reasonable modifications）。
4。 The IRB should read the study； each member listing questions to raise。 You may want to alert them
to some specific concerns they might miss。 Appoint a chairperson to coordinate the session。 With a
large class you might save time with two IRBs； the second one preparing the materials for Proposals
427
2 and 4 while the first does 1 and 3。
5。 The first experimenters are invited to present the reasons for seeking approval of their research。
Then the mittee members raise their concerns and objections。 The experimenters have a chance
to reply； after which a group IRB decision is made。
6。 Follow the same procedure for each additional proposal。
7。 Throughout the section； you may act as moderator （or devil’s advocate） to lend support to one side
or the other if the discussion gets bogged down or is missing important points。
PITFALLS TO AVOID
1。 Be sure to create a present…time perspective of this event unfolding now in order to maximize
personal involvement。
2。 Set time limits for review of each proposal； if heated discussion arises； it is easy to run overtime。
3。 Establish the important role of the IRB and possible student representation on it； in order for the
class members to take their roles seriously。
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
1。 What is the overall verdict of the mittee on the studies in question？ What are the individual
verdicts？ Are there any studies that split the mittee or caused a stalemate？
2。 Analyze and summarize specific features of proposals that were found objectionable。
3。 Review specific arguments that were effective or ineffective in persuading the IRB to approve the
research。
4。 Were there stylistic or content features of these proposals that made some more likely to be accepted
than others； for example； reference to prior research； explicit mention of benefits of research； basic
versus applied orientation； rhetoric； etc。？
DISCUSSION； EXTENSIONS； AND EXPERIMENTAL VARIATIONS
1。 Does the concern of an IRB unnecessarily limit scientific research？ What are the drawbacks to such
a system of review？
2。 What should the position be of an IRB at your school； i。e。； what constituencies should be
represented？
3。 How might the status of the researcher influence the IRB； and how can this possible bias be
handled？
4。 Can there ever be true informed consent for populations in coercive environments such as prisons
or for poor people who need the money they get for participating in the research？
5。 How can research be conducted to demonstrate that deception has negative consequences if it is
judged unethical to deceive subjects？
6。 What are the ethical issues in the treatment of animal subjects？ （Perhaps obtain guidelines for such
research from your school。）
7。 Make connections with previous sections：
。 How ethical was the section on guilt； in which one volunteer was instructed to perform
actions outside the classroom so that he would “feel” like a criminal？
。 Is suicide intervention ethical？ Should people be allowed to freely make their own decision
428
in this matter？ What are the limits and safeguards on what can be done under the name of
“education” or “therapy” that is not “research”？
。 Relate this section to the one on impression management by analyzing how the
experimenters tried to manage favorable impressions。 Have two stu