Psychology 350, Spring 2008
Name:______
Assignment #2: Research Ethics
(Please see syllabus for instructions, grading, due date, and penalties for being late)
A (1 point): The assignment should be 1 – 2 pages single-spaced. There is no specific format, but your work should be neat and well written, using correct grammar and punctuation. Your paper should contain complete sentences and organized paragraphs. Also list the letter of the scenario that you chose. Listed below are four scenarios. Choose one scenario, and answer the following questions:
B (4 points): List and evaluate the ethical considerations raised in the scenario. Considerations may include (but are not limited to): consent, coercion, risk (physical, social, or psychological), right to withdraw, privacy, deception, and debriefing.
C (1 point): Assign a rating of ethical cost of the study from zero (no ethical cost) to 10 (highest ethical cost), and justify your rating.
D (1 point): Assign a rating of potential benefit arising from the study from zero (no practical or theoretical benefit) to 10 (highest benefit), and justify your rating.
E (3 points): If you were a member of an Institutional Review Board (IRB), would you approve this research? Explain why or why not. What additional information would you want to have before giving approval? What changes would you like to see before giving approval? Are there alternative approaches you would suggest?
SCENARIO A:In an investigation of higher moral standards, an experimental psychologist was interested in the strength of peoples’ moral convictions. An experiment was designed in which participants were told that a child was critically in need of a drug that could be derived from a fungus found in a particular limestone cave. The fungus grew in abundance in this cave, and only a small proportion was needed for treatment. However, the owner of the cave refused to allow anyone to use the fungus. The experimenter found that a large percentage of participants reported that they would trespass to obtain samples of the fungus. In a second part of the experiment, the researcher asked some of the participants to obtain the fungus illegally. In justifying the procedure, he argued that a higher moral principle was served, and that the results would have a major impact on the knowledge of civil disobedience.
SCENARIO B:The identification of criminal offenders by eyewitnesses is considered an important social and psychological issue. To study it, a researcher decided to stage a crime in the presence of eyewitnesses and, then, ask them for a description of the perpetrator. The experiment was conducted in a fast-food outlet, and all employees carefully rehearsed the staged crime. The crime was committed by an actor who entered the store, displayed an unloaded handgun, and demanded all the money from the cash register. He told the employees not to call the police and, when making his getaway, shouted, “The first one out of the door is going to get blown away!” Immediately after the thief left, the researcher and her associates entered the store with a questionnaire, which they distributed to the patrons. The questions dealt with the physical appearance of the thief, whether or not the person had a weapon, and what he or she said. Each patron was thoroughly debriefed after the questionnaire was completed. The debriefing included a discussion of important social and psychological issues. An opportunity was provided for further debriefing and counseling, but no participant indicated a need for further intervention.
SCENARIO C: In a field experiment, a woman (who was actually part of the experiment) stood by her car on the side of the road. The car had a flat tire. To determine if modeling would affect the helping behavior of passing motorists, on some trials another woman with a flat tire was helped by a stopped motorist (all part of the staged event) about a quarter of a mile before the place where the woman waited for help. As expected, motorists were more likely to stop and help if they had just witnessed another person helping.
SCENARIO D: Men are recruited to participate in an experiment on sexual attitudes, although they are not told that it is actually a study of attitudes towards homosexuality. Participants are led to believe that a “psychogalvanometer” used in the experiment is capable of detecting sexual arousal. They are also told that if the galvanometer registers arousal when an individual looks at slides of nude males, the individual is probably a latent homosexual. The galvanometer is rigged so that all participants are led to believe that they are latent homosexuals. Following the experiment, the researcher informs the participants that the galvanometer was rigged, and he gives detailed information about the study and its true purpose.