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

This section offers practical guidance for conducting ethical research in psychology. It is essential to recognise that ethical considerations are not limited to the data collection phase but emerge at every stage of the research process, from initial planning and study design to publication and the broader dissemination of findings.

Understand and Embrace Your Ethical Responsibilities

The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethics Code states clearly that “Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.” This means that as a researcher, it is your responsibility to fully understand and uphold ethical standards throughout your work.

To begin, make sure you are familiar with the APA Ethics Code, particularly the sections relevant to research. You should be able to distinguish between minimal risk research and at-risk research and understand your institution’s specific policies and procedures for ethical approval. This includes knowing how to properly prepare and submit your research proposal to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for review.

If your research is part of a course requirement, additional course-specific policies and expectations might apply. If you encounter an ethical question or are unsure about any standard, policy, or procedure, seek clarification immediately. You can do this by:

• Referring to the relevant ethics codes
• Researching how similar ethical issues have been addressed by others
• Consulting experienced researchers, your IRB, or your course instructor.

Ultimately, the ethical responsibility for your research rests with you. Taking the time to understand and follow ethical guidelines not only protects your participants but also maintains the integrity of your research and contributes to the credibility of the scientific community.

Identifying and Minimising Risks in Research

When designing your study, it is essential to identify and minimise potential risks to participants. Risks can include physical harm, psychological distress, or breaches of confidentiality.

Start by carefully listing all possible risks. Keep in mind that researchers often underestimate the seriousness of risks or overlook them entirely. For example, a student researcher testing people’s sensitivity to violent images planned to show participants graphic photos from crime and accident scenes. Because she was an emergency medical technician (EMT), she was desensitised to such images and failed to realise how deeply disturbing they might be for others.

Also, remember that certain risks may affect only specific participants. For example, most people might have no issue answering a survey about their fear of crime, but someone who has been a victim of a violent crime might find those questions upsetting. To avoid such oversights, seek input from others, including collaborators, experienced researchers, and even non-researchers who can offer a participant’s perspective.

Once risks are identified, you can often reduce or eliminate them in three main ways:

1. Modify the Research Design

Simplify or shorten procedures to minimise frustration and fatigue. If your study uses upsetting materials, consider using less distressing alternatives. For example, instead of graphic accident scene photos, use milder images similar to those shown in newspapers.

A good example of this approach comes from Jerry Burger’s (2009) replication of Milgram’s obedience study. Burger stopped participants from administering shocks beyond 150 volts, knowing that Milgram’s original participants experienced the most severe stress after this point. By doing this, Burger could still compare his findings with Milgram’s results while avoiding unnecessary psychological harm to participants. Interestingly, Burger found that modern participants were just as obedient as those in Milgram’s original study.

2. Pre-Screen Participants

Use a pre-screening process to identify participants who may be at high risk of harm. The informed consent process can also help by warning participants about sensitive topics and reminding them they can withdraw at any time.

Pre-screening might involve administering surveys or interviews to identify physical or psychological conditions that might make participation risky. For example, Burger’s study included extensive pre-screening with questionnaires and a clinical psychologist’s interview to eliminate high-risk participants before they took part in the study.

3. Protect Confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality is crucial to protecting participants. Store signed consent forms separately from research data to ensure participants’ identities remain anonymous.

Additionally:

• Only collect essential personal information required for your research question. If details like sexual orientation or ethnicity are not directly relevant, do not ask for them.
• Be cautious with data collection environments. For example, conducting oral surveys in public places like shopping malls or distributing questionnaires in shared classrooms can lead to unintentional breaches of confidentiality. Instead, administer surveys in private or use strategies to ensure responses remain secure.

By carefully identifying risks, refining your study design, pre-screening participants, and protecting confidentiality, you can create a safer and more ethical research experience for everyone involved.

Reducing and Justifying Deception in Research

Deception in research can take many forms, and it does not always involve directly misleading participants. It can also include allowing participants to make incorrect assumptions about the study or withholding key details about its purpose or design. To ensure ethical practices, it is important to identify and minimise all forms of deception in your study.

Is Deception Necessary?

According to the APA Ethics Code, deception is only ethically acceptable if there is no other way to answer your research question. If your study includes any type of deception, ask yourself whether it is truly essential.

For example, imagine you want to study whether the age of college professors affects students’ expectations about their teaching ability. You might plan to show participants photos of people and ask them to rate their teaching ability, claiming the images are of real college professors. However, if the photos are actually of your friends and family, this would constitute deception. Instead, you could simply tell participants that the photos represent college professors and ask them to rate them as if they were. This approach removes the need for deception while still allowing you to answer your research question effectively.

Balancing Informed Consent and Research Validity

It is generally acceptable to withhold your specific research question until the debriefing stage, as long as you fully inform participants about the procedures, risks, and benefits during the informed consent process.

In the example about age and teaching expectations, you would not need to tell participants that you are studying how age affects their perceptions. Sharing this detail upfront might change their behaviour, where some might unconsciously rate older and younger “professors” differently because they think that is what you expect, while others might overcorrect to avoid appearing biased.

To address this, you can include a brief clarification during the consent process. You might explain to participants, either orally, in writing, or both, that while the procedures, risks, and benefits have been fully described, you will wait until after the study to reveal the exact research question. In essence, participants are giving their consent to be temporarily misled or to have certain information withheld until debriefing.

Balancing Risks and Benefits in Research

After identifying and minimising risks in your research, the next step is to weigh those risks against the potential benefits. This process involves considering all possible benefits, not just for participants, but also for science and society as a whole.

If you are a student researcher, do not forget that one of the benefits is the experience and knowledge you will gain about conducting psychological research. These skills will help you succeed in your studies, graduate school, or your future career.

Minimal vs. Greater Than Minimal Risk

If your research involves minimal risk, where the risks are no greater than what people encounter in daily life or during routine medical or psychological exams, then even a small benefit can justify the study.

However, if your research involves more than minimal risk, the benefits must be more substantial. For example:

• If your study might cause participants emotional distress or discomfort, it must address a meaningful scientific question or have clear practical value.
• It would be unethical to subject participants to pain, fear, or embarrassment without a valid scientific purpose or simply to satisfy personal curiosity.

Ethical Guidelines for Higher Risk Research

In general, psychological research that has the potential to cause serious or long-lasting harm is rarely justified unless the benefits are exceptionally significant.

When weighing risks and benefits, always ask:

• Is the research question important and valuable?
• Are the risks minimised as much as possible?
• Do the benefits outweigh any potential harm?

By carefully balancing risks and benefits, you ensure that your research is not only scientifically valuable but also ethically responsible.

Developing Informed Consent and Debriefing Procedures

After finalising your research design, the next step is to establish clear informed consent and debriefing procedures.

Informed Consent

Start by determining whether informed consent is required under APA Standard 8.05. If it is, follow these key steps:

1. Provide Clear Information During Recruitment: Whether you are recruiting participants through word of mouth, flyers, or an online participant pool, share as much information as possible about the study upfront. This allows people who might find the study uncomfortable or objectionable to opt out.
2. Prepare a Script or Talking Points: Write a clear and simple explanation of your study in everyday language. Include details about the procedure, potential risks and benefits, and participants’ right to withdraw at any time.
3. Create an Informed Consent Form: Develop a form that covers all key elements outlined in Standard 8.02a. Participants should read and sign this form after you have explained the study to them. Many institutions or instructors provide sample consent forms you can customise. If not, you can find reliable templates online.
4. Address Deception (if applicable): If your study involves withholding certain information or using deception, state clearly (both orally and in writing) that some details will be revealed during debriefing.

Debriefing

Debriefing is just as important as informed consent and follows a similar approach.

1. Use a Script or Talking Points: Do not rely solely on written debriefing forms. Instead, prepare a clear explanation in simple language.
2. Explain the Research Fully: Share the study’s true purpose and design, including what happened in conditions participants were not exposed to.
3. Address Deception Honestly: If deception was used, reveal it as soon as possible, apologise, and explain why it was necessary. Correct any misunderstandings participants might have as a result.
4. Offer Resources and Support: Debriefing is an opportunity to provide practical resources or referrals that might benefit participants. For example, in a study about attitudes toward domestic abuse, you could offer pamphlets and contact information for counselling services.

Plan Adequate Time

Both informed consent and debriefing require time. Rushing through either process can compromise their effectiveness and leave participants feeling uninformed or undervalued.

Securing Institutional Approval

Before starting your study, you will need to obtain institutional approval based on your institution’s or course’s specific policies and procedures.

This process typically involves writing a detailed research protocol that includes:

• the purpose of your study
• the research design and procedure you will follow
• a clear explanation of risks and benefits for participants
• steps taken to minimise risks and protect participants
• your informed consent and debriefing procedures.

While the approval process might seem like just another hurdle, it is actually a valuable opportunity to carefully think through the ethical aspects of your research. It also allows you to consult with experienced reviewers who can provide useful insights and fresh perspectives.

If the Institutional Review Board (IRB) raises questions or suggests changes, respond promptly and thoughtfully. This might involve making adjustments to your research design or procedures and resubmitting your protocol for further review. Approaching this step with an open mind will not only help you meet ethical requirements but also improve the overall quality and integrity of your study.

Staying Ethical Throughout the Research Process

Ethical responsibility does not stop once your study receives institutional approval. It is essential to follow the approved protocol carefully and seek additional approval if you need to make any significant changes.

During the research process, pay close attention to participants’ reactions and remain alert for any unexpected responses or signs of distress. Gather feedback during debriefing to identify any concerns participants might have. For example, one criticism of Milgram’s obedience study was that although he could not have predicted participants’ severe stress reactions, he should have adjusted the procedure after observing the first few participants’ experiences.

You must also protect confidentiality throughout the study. Keep consent forms and participant data separate and secure to prevent accidental or intentional breaches of privacy. Ensure that no one outside the research team has access to participants’ personal information.

Your commitment to integrity extends to publication and beyond. Clarify authorship roles early with your collaborators, making sure credit accurately reflects contributions. Avoid plagiarism by properly citing sources and never reusing your previously published work without acknowledgment.

Most importantly, stay honest about your findings. Your role as a scientist is to report your results truthfully, even if they do not align with your predictions. Unexpected outcomes often lead to valuable new insights and can be just as important, if not more so, than anticipated ones.

References

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932