By Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler and Dana C. Leighton, adapted by Marc Chao and Muhamad Alif Bin Ibrahim

The principles of weighing risks against benefits, acting with integrity, seeking justice, and respecting people’s rights and dignity form a strong foundation for thinking about the ethics of psychological research. These principles are widely accepted and offer a common ground for ethical decision-making. However, even when people agree on these general principles, they may still disagree on how to handle specific ethical dilemmas that arise during research.

For this reason, detailed and enforceable ethics codes have been created to address recurring ethical issues and offer clear guidance for researchers. In this section, we will start with a brief look at the history of these ethics codes and then focus on the one most relevant to psychological research: the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code.

Historical Overview

One of the first major ethics codes was the Nuremberg Code, created in 1947 following the trials of Nazi physicians who had conducted cruel and inhumane experiments on concentration camp prisoners during World War II. The code established ten key principles, emphasising the importance of carefully weighing risks against benefits and ensuring informed consent from participants. Many of the accused physicians were convicted and either imprisoned or sentenced to death based on these standards.

In 1964, the Declaration of Helsinki was introduced by the World Medical Association as an extension of the Nuremberg Code. This declaration added the requirement for researchers to create a written protocol, a detailed research plan, which must be reviewed by an independent ethics committee. The Declaration of Helsinki has undergone multiple revisions, with the most recent one occurring in 2004.

In the United States, growing concerns about unethical studies like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study led to the publication of the Belmont Report in 1978. This report highlighted three core principles:

1. Justice: Research must fairly distribute risks and benefits across different societal groups.
2. Respect for Persons: Researchers must respect individuals’ autonomy and provide extra protection for those with diminished autonomy, such as children or prisoners. This principle supports the need for informed consent.
3. Beneficence: Researchers must aim to maximise benefits while minimising harm to participants and society.

The Belmont Report became the foundation for a set of laws known as the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. These regulations require institutions receiving federal funding, such as universities and hospitals, to establish an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is responsible for reviewing research proposals to ensure they meet ethical standards. An IRB must include at least five members with diverse backgrounds, including scientists, non-scientists, men, women, and at least one person unaffiliated with the institution. The IRB evaluates research proposals to ensure that risks are minimised, benefits outweigh risks, participants are treated fairly, and informed consent is appropriately obtained.

Federal regulations classify research into three levels of risk:

• Exempt Research: This category involves minimal risk, such as studies on standard educational practices, surveys with non-sensitive topics where confidentiality is maintained, or research using publicly available data. Once approved, exempt research does not require ongoing IRB review.
• Expedited Research: This level includes research with slightly higher risk but still falls within the category of “minimal risk”. Examples include certain psychological tests or studies involving standard physical or psychological assessments. Expedited reviews are conducted by either one IRB member or a small committee operating under the IRB’s authority.
• Full-Board Review Research: Research that poses risks greater than minimal risk must undergo a full IRB review. In this process, the entire board evaluates the study to ensure all ethical standards are met.

These guidelines and review processes are essential for maintaining the balance between advancing scientific knowledge and protecting the rights and well-being of research participants.

Ethics Codes

For those interested in exploring the ethics codes discussed in this section, the Office of Human Subjects Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides access to the full texts. These documents are highly recommended reading, as they are generally brief, clear, and easy to understand, except for the Federal Policy, which is more detailed.

• The Nuremberg Code
• The Declaration of Helsinki
• The Belmont Report
• Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.

You can find these ethics codes on the Ethical Codes and Research Standards website.

APA Ethics Code

The APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, often referred to as the APA Ethics Code, was first introduced in 1953 and has been updated several times, most recently in 2010. This code outlines approximately 150 specific ethical standards that psychologists and their students must follow. While many of these standards focus on clinical practices, such as advertising services, managing fees, and maintaining professional boundaries, Standard 8: Research and Publication is particularly relevant for research ethics. Table 7.2.1 lists and simplifies the key aspects of APA Ethics Code Standard 8: Research and Publication.

A more detailed version of the full ethics code is available on the APA Ethics Code website.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is about ensuring participants understand and agree to take part in a study after being fully informed about what it involves. This includes explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, their right to refuse participation or withdraw at any time, and any legal limitations on confidentiality. For example, in some states, researchers are legally required to report evidence of child abuse or other crimes.

While informed consent often involves participants reading and signing a consent form, the form itself is not enough. Many participants either skim through the form or fail to understand its content. Some mistakenly believe that signing the form means they are giving up their right to take legal action (Mann, 1994). Therefore, it is good practice for researchers to go beyond the form. This means explaining the study verbally, answering questions, demonstrating procedures when appropriate, and reminding participants of their right to withdraw at any time.

There are also situations where informed consent is not required. If the study poses no risk and involves everyday activities, formal consent might not be necessary. For instance, observing whether people hold doors open in public spaces does not require consent. Similarly, if a college instructor compares two standard teaching methods across different class sections, informed consent would not be needed because both methods fall within ordinary educational practices.

Deception in Psychological Research

In psychological research, deception can take many forms. Researchers might mislead participants about a study’s purpose, use actors (called confederates), employ fake equipment like Milgram’s shock generator, or give false feedback (e.g., telling someone they performed poorly on a test when they actually did well). Deception can also involve leaving out key details about the study’s true purpose, even if no outright lies are told. For example, in a study on incidental learning, participants might assume they will be tested on memorising words from a list. However, the real test might focus on something unexpected, like their memory of the room’s layout or the research assistant’s appearance.

Some researchers believe deception is rarely, if ever, ethically acceptable. They argue that it undermines informed consent, disrespects participants’ dignity, risks causing distress, reduces trust in researchers, and potentially harms the credibility of the entire field (Baumrind, 1985).

However, the APA Ethics Code takes a more balanced stance. It allows deception if four key conditions are met:

1. The study’s benefits outweigh the risks.
2. Participants are unlikely to suffer harm.
3. The research question cannot be answered without using deception.
4. Participants are informed about the deception as soon as possible, typically during debriefing.

This approach recognises that not all deception is equally harmful. For example, Milgram’s famous study caused severe psychological stress through significant deception. In contrast, a simple incidental learning study where participants are mildly misled about a memory test poses far less risk.

Additionally, some important research questions simply cannot be answered without using deception. If participants know in advance that a study focuses on obedience, aggression, or helping behaviour, their awareness could influence their actions. As a result, the study’s findings might no longer reflect real-world behaviour.

Debriefing in Psychological Research

Debriefing, outlined in Standard 8.08 of the APA Ethics Code, is the process of explaining a study’s purpose to participants after their involvement ends. This step is especially important when deception was used. Researchers must clarify the true goals of the study, reveal any misleading information, and correct any misunderstandings participants might have.

Debriefing also focuses on minimising any harm or discomfort caused by the study. For example, in an experiment designed to study how sadness affects memory, participants might have been put in a sad mood by thinking about unhappy memories, watching a sad video, or listening to melancholy music. During debriefing, researchers would actively help participants return to a neutral or positive emotional state, perhaps by showing an uplifting video, playing cheerful music, or encouraging them to focus on happy thoughts.

Research with Nonhuman Animal Subjects

Standard 8.09 of the APA Ethics Code focuses on the humane treatment and care of nonhuman animal subjects in psychological research. While most psychological studies today do not involve animals, they still play an essential role in certain areas, such as understanding learning and behaviour, exploring brain functions, and developing treatments for psychological disorders.

The use of animals in research has sparked significant ethical debate. Critics argue that animals cannot provide informed consent and may be subjected to distressing conditions, such as confinement, food or water deprivation, painful procedures, surgeries, or even euthanasia. However, some research is far less invasive, involving simple observation in natural or controlled environments.

Supporters of animal research highlight its significant contributions to both human and animal well-being. Animal studies have led to breakthroughs in behavioural therapies, pain management techniques, and medications for mental health disorders. Additionally, these studies have benefited animals themselves, offering more humane methods for managing animal populations compared to practices like poisoning or shooting.

The APA takes a balanced stance, allowing research with nonhuman animals when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Researchers are required to use alternative methods whenever possible. If animal subjects must be used, they must be housed, fed, and cared for in humane conditions, and any harm must be minimised.

For more details on the APA’s guidelines for animal research, you can visit the APA Committee on Animal Research and Ethics website.

Scholarly Integrity

Standards 8.10 to 8.15 of the APA Ethics Code focus on maintaining honesty and transparency in research and publishing. At the core of these guidelines are key principles:

Lastly, authorship credit must accurately reflect each person’s contribution to the research. The order of authors’ names should be based on the significance of their contributions. It is unethical to list someone as an author who only made a minor contribution, such as running an analysis, or for a faculty member to claim first authorship on a project primarily conducted by a student.

References

Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.165

Mann, T. (1994). Informed consent for psychological research: Do subjects comprehend consent forms and understand their legal rights? Psychological Science, 5(3), 140-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00650.x