Vulnerable Populations: Case Studies in Crowding Research

  • Chalsa M. Loo
Part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology book series (SSSOC)


This chapter deals with selected ethical issues that arise in research on the effects of crowding, with particular emphasis on broad issues pertaining to informed consent. These include the use of “participant advocates,” and debriefing procedures tailored to the participants’ needs, assessing the effectiveness of debriefing procedures in removing imposed discomfort, assessing the degree of imposed harm on participants, accommodating the circumstances and needs of the community by addressing problems involved in conducting research in the community and determining community attitudes toward the investigated variables, and minimizing feelings of powerlessness on the part of subjects.


Ethnic Minority Vulnerable Population Autistic Child American Psychological Association Ethnic Minority Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. American Institute of Planners Newsletter, January 1967, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association, Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, E. N. Some Chinese methods of dealing with crowding. Urban Anthropology, 1972, 1, 143–150.Google Scholar
  4. Bartz, W. While psychologists doze on. American Psychologist, 1970, 25 500–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calhoun, J. Population density and social pathology. Scientific American, 1962, 206, 139–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinatown 1970 census: Population and housing summary and analysis. Prepared by the San Francisco Department of City Planning, August 1972.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, K. Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.Google Scholar
  8. Cowen, E. L., Lorion, R. P., & Dorr, D. Research in the community cauldron: A case history. The Canadian Psychologist, 1974, 15, 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craik, K. Environmental psychology. In New directions in psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Fawcett, J. Psychology and population. New Haven, Conn.: The Population Council, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. Guzman, R. Ethics in federally subsidized research—The case of the Mexican American. In Inter-Agency Committee on Mexican American Affairs, 1967. The Mexican-American: A new focus on opportunity, Testimony presented at the Cabinet Committee Hearing on Mexican American Affairs, El Paso, Texas, October 26–28, 1967, Washington, D.C., pp. 245–249.Google Scholar
  12. Hutt, C., & Vaizey, J. Differential effects of group density on social behavior. Nature, 1966,209, 1371–1372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Josephson, E. Resistance to community surveys. Social Problems, 1970, 18, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Katz, I., Robinson, J. M., Epps, E. G., & Waly, P. The influence of race of the experimenter and instructions upon the expression of hostility by Negro boys. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 20, 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelman, H. C. The rights of the subject in social research: An analysis in terms of relative power and legitimacy. American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 989–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Light, I., & Wong, C. Protest or work: Dilemmas of the tourist industry in American Chinatowns. American Journal of Sociology, 1975, 80, 1342–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Loo, C. Issues of crowding research, vulnerable participants, assessing perceptions, and developmental differences. Journal of Population, 1978, 1, 336–348. (a)Google Scholar
  18. Loo, C. Behavior problem indices: The differential effects of spatial density on low and high scorers. Environment and Behavior, 1978, 10, 489–509. (b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noblit, G. W., & Burcart, J. M. Ethics, powerless peoples, and methodologist for the study of trouble. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 1975, 2, 20–25.Google Scholar
  20. Price, R. H., & Chemiss, C. Training for a new profession: Research as social action. Professional Psychology, 1977, 8, 222–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ryan, W. Blaming the victim. New York: Pantheon, 1971.Google Scholar
  22. Schmitt, R. C. Implications of density in Hong Kong. American Institute of Planners Journal, 1963, 29, 210–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sommer, R. Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.Google Scholar
  24. Tyler, L. E. Design for a hopeful psychology. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 1021–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Warwick, D. P., & Lininger, C. A. The sample survey: Theory and practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.Google Scholar
  26. West, S. G., & Gunn, S. P. Some issues of ethics and social psychology. American Psychologist, 1978, 33, 30–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams, J. A., Jr. Interviewer-respondent interaction: A study of bias in the information interview. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wohlwill, J. The emerging discipline of environmental psychology. American Psychologist, 1970, 25, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young, N. Changes in values and strategies among Chinese in Hawaii. Sociology and Social Research, 1972, 56, 228–241.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chalsa M. Loo

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations