Advertisement

Ethical Considerations in Psychology Research

  • John OatesEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Research in psychology covers two main fields: furthering the understanding of the whole, complex gamut of processes that are involved in everyday human experience and behavior and developing methods for treating mental health problems. While the ethics of research and practice in this latter field falls largely within the general ambit of medical ethics, psychology research outside this domain involves some quite specific ethics issues in addition to those common across social sciences. Professional bodies of psychologists have developed specific codes and guidance for the ethical conduct of research, offering best practice guidance. There are several enduring ethics concerns for psychology researchers that are covered in this chapter. These include the validity of consent, how to ethically manage withholding information from participants, or deceiving them, where this is a necessary part of the research design. Also, with the growth in Internet-based research, genomics, and neuroimaging, psychologists have had to develop new ways of maintaining standards and compliance with ethical principles of the discipline. New approaches have required development to manage issues of consent, especially with children and young people.

Keywords

Psychology; Research ethics; Deception; Neuroscience; Children; Consent; Internet-mediated research; Replicability; Ethics codes 

References

  1. Aarts AA et al. (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:943–950Google Scholar
  2. Altus D, Morris E (2009) B. F. Skinner’s utopian vision: behind and beyond Walden Two. Behav Anal 32:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association (2017) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker M, van Dijk A, Wicherts J (2012) The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspect Psychol Sci 7:543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banks S (2018) Cultivating researcher integrity: virtue-based approaches to research ethics. In: Emmerich N (ed) Virtue ethics in the conduct and governance of social science research. Bingley, EmeraldGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohannon J (2015) Many psychology papers fail replication test. Science 349:910–911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boynton M, Portnoy D, Johnson B (2013) Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB 35:7–13Google Scholar
  8. British Psychological Society (2005) Declaration concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. British Psychological Society, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  9. British Psychological Society (2014) Code of human research ethics. British Psychological Society, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  10. British Psychological Society (2015) Guidance on teaching and assessment of ethical competence in psychology education. British Psychological Society, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  11. British Psychological Society (2017) Ethics guidelines for Internet-mediated research. INF206/04.2017. Leicester. http://www.bps.org.uk/publications/policy-and-guidelines/research-guidelines-policy-documents/researchguidelines-poli
  12. British Psychological Society (2018) Code of ethics and conduct. British Psychological Society, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Budin-Ljøsne I, Teare HJA, Kaye J, Beck S, Bentzen HB, Caenazzo L, Collett C, D’Abramo F, Felzmann H, Finlay T, Javaid MK, Jones E, Katić V, Simpson A, Mascalzoni D (2017) Dynamic consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics:1–10Google Scholar
  14. Cummings JA, Day TE (2019) But what do participants want? Comment on the “data sharing in psychology” special section (2018). Am Psychol 74:245–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Emmerich N (2018) Virtue ethics in the conduct and governance of social science research. Emerald Publishing, BingleyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gigerenzer G (2015) On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Rev Philos Psychol 6:361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Res Rev 9: 1-17. Office of Naval Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Herrera CD (2001) Ethics, deception, and ‘those milgram experiments’. J Appl Philos 18:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kimmel J (1996) Ethical issues in behavioral research. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindsay G, Koene C, Øvreeide H, Lang F (2008) Ethics for European psychologists. Göttingen, HogrefeGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 67:371–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orwell G (1949) Nineteen eighty-four. Secker and Warburg, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Rest J (1982) A psychologist looks at the teaching of ethics. Hast Cent Rep 12:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rozemond M (1998) Descartes’ dualism. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Sclenker B, Forsyth D (1977) On the ethics of psychological research. J Exp Soc Psychol 13:369–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skinner BF (1948) Walden two. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Skinner BF (1985) Cognitive science and behaviourism. Br J Psychol 76:291–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, Gray JR (2008) The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. J Cogn Neurosci 20:470–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wickelgren I (1999) Discovery of ‘gay gene’ questioned. Science 284:571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yanow D, Schwartz-Shea P (2018) Framing “deception” and “covertness” in research: do milgram, humphreys, and zimbardo justify regulating social science research ethics? Forum Qual Soc Res 19:1–31Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations