STATISTIC 2
WEEK1.1
RESEARCH ETHICS
Historical examples:
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study illustrates three Major Ethics Violations: in the late 1920s and early 1930s,
about 35% of poor Black men living in the southern United States were infected with syphilis.
The Us Public Health Service studied 600 subjects. The researchers wanted to study the effects of untreated
syphilis on the men’s health over the long term.
To ensure that they would come in for the procedure, the researchers lied, telling the men it was a “special
free treatment” for their illness.
First, the men were not treated respectfully. The researchers lied to them about the nature of their
participation and withheld information.
they did not give the men a chance to make a fully informed decision about participating in the study.
Second, the men in the study were harmed. Third, the researchers targeted a disadvantaged social group in
this study.
Milgram’s obedience studies: he wanted to study under which conditions a person would bear authority.
The participant was in front of an electroshock, he had to ask questions to another participant.
If the learner gave the right answer, he didn’t have to shock him; but if he was wrong, he would shock him at
gradually higher volts.
The learner was hidden, it was a simulation, but the participant could hear the (fake) screams of the learner.
The researcher noticed that the participants were willing to shock them, if pushed by an authority: 65% went
up to the highest shock.
= people put under pressure to continue by the authority didn’t feel the ethics of the choices and continued to
“torture” the other side.
It was unethical: people believed they were hurting or even killing somebody, there would need to be a
strong debriefing after this experiment.
Some writers have questioned how Milgram’s participants coped with their involvement over time. In an
interview after the study, the participants were debriefed; they were carefully informed about the study’s
hypotheses. They shook hands with the learner, who reassured them he was unharmed. However, in order
to avoid influencing potential future participants, the debriefing never mentioned that the learner did not
receive shocks . In interviews years later, some participants reported worrying for weeks about the learner’s
welfare.
Some people were traumatized, but also a proportion of others said they just did what they were told in the
context of an experiment.
It was also unethical because they couldn’t withdraw unless after many obstacles (after being asked 4 times).
In this case it is difficult to say if there was a balance between the risk to participants and benefit to society,
an important consideration to make before any experiment.
After the Syphilis scandal, the US Congress paired a committee at the Belmont center, which redacted the
,THE BELMONT REPORT
Core ethical principles:
-Respect for persons → people have autonomy and you should treat them as autonomous persons, who can
make their own decisions.
Individuals potentially involved in research should be treated as autonomous agents: They should be free to
make up their own minds about whether they wish to participate in a research study.
Applying this principle means that participation must be prior to an informed consent: they need to know
information about the research project, risks and benefits, and what is the purpose of the experiments.
They decide whether to participate or not, and can withdraw at any moment without any influence.
From this principle also follows the Protection of vulnerable population: If not autonomous, they need extra
protection ( children, people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, and prisoners should be
protected, according to the Belmont Report).
This also implies the respect for people’s Dignity: you can’t make an offer to people that violate their dignity.
For the right price anybody would do anything, yet you cannot make such an offer.
-Beneficence → protect participants from harm and ensure their wellbeing, this means that researchers have
to make a cost-benefit analysis both for participants and for the society.
In writing a research proposal: consider scientific and societal meaningfulness.
-Justice → calls for a fair balance between the kinds of people who participate in research and the kinds of
people who benefit from it.
Always have to analyze who is your population, who is in the sample, who gets the benefits and who bears
the costs.
How are participants selected? Do they represent the people who will benefit from the study?
(ex. only black people in the syphilis study, it’s unfair because also other people will benefit from it)
Other Belmont report’s Basic Principles:
In addition to the Belmont Report, local policies, and federal laws, American psychologists can consult
another layer of ethical principles and standards written by the American Psychological Association (APA),
the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
adds the principles of
-Fidelity and Responsibility: establish a relationship of trust, accept responsibility for professional behavior;
- and Integrity: be accurate, truthful and honest in one’s role as researcher.
All social science research requires participants to read and fill an INFORMED CONSENT FORM before
the beginning of the experiment:
,informed consent is the researcher’s obligation to explain the study to potential participants in everyday
language and give them a chance to decide whether to participate. In most studies, informed consent is
obtained by providing a written document that outlines the procedures, risks, and benefits of the research,
including a statement about any treatments that are experimental.
Everyone who wishes to participate signs two copies of the document.
In certain circumstances, the APA standards (and other federal laws that govern research) indicate that
informed consent procedures are not necessary.
Specifically, researchers may not be required to have participants sign informed consent forms if the study is
not likely to cause harm and if it takes place in an educational setting. Written informed consent might not be
needed when participants answer a completely anonymous questionnaire in which their answers are not
linked to their names in any way.
Written consent may not be required when the study involves naturalistic observation of participants in
low-risk public settings, such as a museum, classroom, or mall—where people can reasonably expect to be
observed by others anyway.
The informed consent includes
-name of the researchers and contacts
-information on the data treatment after the experiment is concluded (keeping or selling data might create
privacy issues, violation of reliability, if you deceive your data or offend participants, you won’t find them
for the next experiment, so hinder your future research, trust)
-it’s voluntary,
-purpose of the study,
-what are they asked to do,
-risk, inconveniences, advantages,
-duration,
-how data is treated and the content details.
Studies in which informed consent is unnecessary: where the form spoils the data collection aim, ex. if doing
an observational study, don’t need an informed consent form (looking at traffic in an hour).
Participant Identification:
In anonymous studies you don’t collect names, addresses … no potentially identifying information is
collected.
Only the IP address to make sure that a participant doesn’t take the test twice for example.
In Confidential studies: there is some potentially identifying information collected, necessary to the research,
BUT it is never disclosed, and is stored separately from participants’ data (typically linked to a random ID
number).
Ex. drug research
Social science research often ends with a DEBRIEFING: contains the actual aim of the study and it is
important to not cause traumas or unintended consequences upon the participants.
In a debriefing session, the researchers describe the nature of the deception and explain why it was
, necessary. Emphasizing the importance of their research, they attempt to restore an honest relationship with
the participant. As part of the debriefing process, the researcher describes the design of the study, thereby
giving the participant some insight about the nature of psychological science.
it is necessary when DECEPTION has been used: we use deception in a study when we think that they will
act differently if they have all the information.
ex. if they know what stimulus is coming, participants may act differently (“so I did the other thing”).
Researchers withheld some details of the study from participants—deception through omission; in some
cases, they actively lied to them—deception through commission.
However, if we deceive, we need to debrief: tell them what happened, it’s required by the APA and it’s
required for studies in a university setting as well.
Example of debriefing form: thank them for participating, the purpose, research question, tell them about the
deception, where to get more information…
Research Misconduct:
Data Fabrication and Data Falsification
Creating fabricated or falsified data is clearly unethical and has far-reaching consequences. Scientists use
data to test their theories, and they can do so only if they know that previously reported data are true and
accurate. When people fabricate data, they mislead others about the actual state of support for a theory.
Plagiarism
To avoid plagiarism, a writer must cite the sources of all ideas that are not his or her own, to give appropriate
credit to the original authors.
[ ANIMAL RESEARCH
In some branches of psychology, research is conducted almost entirely on animal subjects: rats, mice,
cockroaches, sea snails, dogs, rabbits, cats, chimpanzees, and others. The ethical debates surrounding animal
research can be just as complex as those for human participants. Most people have a profound respect for
animals
and compassion for their well-being. Psychologists and non psychologists alike want to protect animals from
undue suffering.
Legal Protection for Laboratory Animals: the research must be approved by a committee containing a
veterinarian, a scientist involved and a member of the local community uninvolved.
-replacement: replace animals as much as possible
-refinement: refine the procedures to minimize the animal distress
-reduction: adopt measures that require the feest animal subjects ]
WEEK 1.2: COMPARING SEVERAL INDEPENDENT MEANS (ANOVA) - CHAPTER 12
WEEK1.1
RESEARCH ETHICS
Historical examples:
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study illustrates three Major Ethics Violations: in the late 1920s and early 1930s,
about 35% of poor Black men living in the southern United States were infected with syphilis.
The Us Public Health Service studied 600 subjects. The researchers wanted to study the effects of untreated
syphilis on the men’s health over the long term.
To ensure that they would come in for the procedure, the researchers lied, telling the men it was a “special
free treatment” for their illness.
First, the men were not treated respectfully. The researchers lied to them about the nature of their
participation and withheld information.
they did not give the men a chance to make a fully informed decision about participating in the study.
Second, the men in the study were harmed. Third, the researchers targeted a disadvantaged social group in
this study.
Milgram’s obedience studies: he wanted to study under which conditions a person would bear authority.
The participant was in front of an electroshock, he had to ask questions to another participant.
If the learner gave the right answer, he didn’t have to shock him; but if he was wrong, he would shock him at
gradually higher volts.
The learner was hidden, it was a simulation, but the participant could hear the (fake) screams of the learner.
The researcher noticed that the participants were willing to shock them, if pushed by an authority: 65% went
up to the highest shock.
= people put under pressure to continue by the authority didn’t feel the ethics of the choices and continued to
“torture” the other side.
It was unethical: people believed they were hurting or even killing somebody, there would need to be a
strong debriefing after this experiment.
Some writers have questioned how Milgram’s participants coped with their involvement over time. In an
interview after the study, the participants were debriefed; they were carefully informed about the study’s
hypotheses. They shook hands with the learner, who reassured them he was unharmed. However, in order
to avoid influencing potential future participants, the debriefing never mentioned that the learner did not
receive shocks . In interviews years later, some participants reported worrying for weeks about the learner’s
welfare.
Some people were traumatized, but also a proportion of others said they just did what they were told in the
context of an experiment.
It was also unethical because they couldn’t withdraw unless after many obstacles (after being asked 4 times).
In this case it is difficult to say if there was a balance between the risk to participants and benefit to society,
an important consideration to make before any experiment.
After the Syphilis scandal, the US Congress paired a committee at the Belmont center, which redacted the
,THE BELMONT REPORT
Core ethical principles:
-Respect for persons → people have autonomy and you should treat them as autonomous persons, who can
make their own decisions.
Individuals potentially involved in research should be treated as autonomous agents: They should be free to
make up their own minds about whether they wish to participate in a research study.
Applying this principle means that participation must be prior to an informed consent: they need to know
information about the research project, risks and benefits, and what is the purpose of the experiments.
They decide whether to participate or not, and can withdraw at any moment without any influence.
From this principle also follows the Protection of vulnerable population: If not autonomous, they need extra
protection ( children, people with intellectual or developmental disabilities, and prisoners should be
protected, according to the Belmont Report).
This also implies the respect for people’s Dignity: you can’t make an offer to people that violate their dignity.
For the right price anybody would do anything, yet you cannot make such an offer.
-Beneficence → protect participants from harm and ensure their wellbeing, this means that researchers have
to make a cost-benefit analysis both for participants and for the society.
In writing a research proposal: consider scientific and societal meaningfulness.
-Justice → calls for a fair balance between the kinds of people who participate in research and the kinds of
people who benefit from it.
Always have to analyze who is your population, who is in the sample, who gets the benefits and who bears
the costs.
How are participants selected? Do they represent the people who will benefit from the study?
(ex. only black people in the syphilis study, it’s unfair because also other people will benefit from it)
Other Belmont report’s Basic Principles:
In addition to the Belmont Report, local policies, and federal laws, American psychologists can consult
another layer of ethical principles and standards written by the American Psychological Association (APA),
the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
adds the principles of
-Fidelity and Responsibility: establish a relationship of trust, accept responsibility for professional behavior;
- and Integrity: be accurate, truthful and honest in one’s role as researcher.
All social science research requires participants to read and fill an INFORMED CONSENT FORM before
the beginning of the experiment:
,informed consent is the researcher’s obligation to explain the study to potential participants in everyday
language and give them a chance to decide whether to participate. In most studies, informed consent is
obtained by providing a written document that outlines the procedures, risks, and benefits of the research,
including a statement about any treatments that are experimental.
Everyone who wishes to participate signs two copies of the document.
In certain circumstances, the APA standards (and other federal laws that govern research) indicate that
informed consent procedures are not necessary.
Specifically, researchers may not be required to have participants sign informed consent forms if the study is
not likely to cause harm and if it takes place in an educational setting. Written informed consent might not be
needed when participants answer a completely anonymous questionnaire in which their answers are not
linked to their names in any way.
Written consent may not be required when the study involves naturalistic observation of participants in
low-risk public settings, such as a museum, classroom, or mall—where people can reasonably expect to be
observed by others anyway.
The informed consent includes
-name of the researchers and contacts
-information on the data treatment after the experiment is concluded (keeping or selling data might create
privacy issues, violation of reliability, if you deceive your data or offend participants, you won’t find them
for the next experiment, so hinder your future research, trust)
-it’s voluntary,
-purpose of the study,
-what are they asked to do,
-risk, inconveniences, advantages,
-duration,
-how data is treated and the content details.
Studies in which informed consent is unnecessary: where the form spoils the data collection aim, ex. if doing
an observational study, don’t need an informed consent form (looking at traffic in an hour).
Participant Identification:
In anonymous studies you don’t collect names, addresses … no potentially identifying information is
collected.
Only the IP address to make sure that a participant doesn’t take the test twice for example.
In Confidential studies: there is some potentially identifying information collected, necessary to the research,
BUT it is never disclosed, and is stored separately from participants’ data (typically linked to a random ID
number).
Ex. drug research
Social science research often ends with a DEBRIEFING: contains the actual aim of the study and it is
important to not cause traumas or unintended consequences upon the participants.
In a debriefing session, the researchers describe the nature of the deception and explain why it was
, necessary. Emphasizing the importance of their research, they attempt to restore an honest relationship with
the participant. As part of the debriefing process, the researcher describes the design of the study, thereby
giving the participant some insight about the nature of psychological science.
it is necessary when DECEPTION has been used: we use deception in a study when we think that they will
act differently if they have all the information.
ex. if they know what stimulus is coming, participants may act differently (“so I did the other thing”).
Researchers withheld some details of the study from participants—deception through omission; in some
cases, they actively lied to them—deception through commission.
However, if we deceive, we need to debrief: tell them what happened, it’s required by the APA and it’s
required for studies in a university setting as well.
Example of debriefing form: thank them for participating, the purpose, research question, tell them about the
deception, where to get more information…
Research Misconduct:
Data Fabrication and Data Falsification
Creating fabricated or falsified data is clearly unethical and has far-reaching consequences. Scientists use
data to test their theories, and they can do so only if they know that previously reported data are true and
accurate. When people fabricate data, they mislead others about the actual state of support for a theory.
Plagiarism
To avoid plagiarism, a writer must cite the sources of all ideas that are not his or her own, to give appropriate
credit to the original authors.
[ ANIMAL RESEARCH
In some branches of psychology, research is conducted almost entirely on animal subjects: rats, mice,
cockroaches, sea snails, dogs, rabbits, cats, chimpanzees, and others. The ethical debates surrounding animal
research can be just as complex as those for human participants. Most people have a profound respect for
animals
and compassion for their well-being. Psychologists and non psychologists alike want to protect animals from
undue suffering.
Legal Protection for Laboratory Animals: the research must be approved by a committee containing a
veterinarian, a scientist involved and a member of the local community uninvolved.
-replacement: replace animals as much as possible
-refinement: refine the procedures to minimize the animal distress
-reduction: adopt measures that require the feest animal subjects ]
WEEK 1.2: COMPARING SEVERAL INDEPENDENT MEANS (ANOVA) - CHAPTER 12
