Assignment On Ethics: Do No Harm In Psychology Research

Assignment Ethics Do No Harmresearchers In Psychology Including Stu

Identify one of the four provided research scenarios involving psychological research and analyze the ethical issues present. Explain how the study might violate principles of ethical behavior according to the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Develop an alternative research methodology from the assigned learning resources that could address the ethical concerns, and describe how the new design would be implemented.

Paper For Above instruction

For this assignment, I have selected the third scenario, where researchers approached individuals on city streets asking for money without informing them that they were part of a research study. This study raises significant ethical concerns, primarily related to issues of informed consent, deception, and participant autonomy, which are fundamental principles outlined by the APA (American Psychological Association, 2010).

The core ethical violation in this scenario pertains to the absence of informed consent. Participants were not made aware that they were involved in research, nor were they informed of the purposes of the interaction. According to the APA’s Ethical Principles, psychologists are required to obtain voluntary, informed consent from research participants unless specific conditions for waiver apply (APA, 2010). This scenario also involves deception, as individuals believed their interactions were genuine and not part of a study. While deception can sometimes be justified if it is necessary and if the research has significant scientific merit, researchers are still obligated to minimize harm and restore trust afterward (APA, 2010). Not informing participants about the true nature of the study compromises their autonomy and rights to make informed decisions about their involvement.

Furthermore, conducting research without debriefing—an essential process where researchers explain the true purpose of the study and address any deception—violates ethical standards designed to protect participants from potential harm or distress. These violations contravene the principle of beneficence, which emphasizes minimizing harm and maximizing benefits, and respect for persons, which underscores the importance of voluntary participation based on informed consent (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

To address the ethical issues, I propose an alternative research design employing naturalistic observation combined with unobtrusive measurement techniques. Instead of actively asking individuals for money and deceiving them, researchers could deploy hidden cameras and discreet recording devices in public spaces, observing actual street interactions without direct interaction or deception. This methodology respects the autonomy of individuals, as they are not actively consenting to specific interactions, but it minimizes ethical violations by ensuring that observations occur in public, non-private settings where there is generally a lower expectation of privacy (Foulk & Maccarone, 2021).

In implementing this alternative design, research teams would first obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), emphasizing the public nature of the observation and the low risk involved. Researchers would clearly specify the scope of observation, ensuring that no identifiable private information is collected or stored. Cameras would be positioned discreetly in public spaces where people expect to be observed freely, such as sidewalks or plazas, rather than in private or semi-private areas. Data collection would focus solely on observable behaviors, and no direct contact with participants would be made. After data collection, researchers could analyze patterns of giving behavior while preserving anonymity.

This design aligns with ethical standards by avoiding deception, facilitating non-invasive data collection, and respecting individuals' rights to participate without coercion. It also reduces the risk of psychological or emotional harm, as participants are not subjected to manipulation or misrepresentation. While it may limit some aspects of experimental control, the approach enhances ethical integrity and scientific validity by ensuring participants’ rights are protected and the study complies with the APA’s ethical guidelines (Rosenbaum & McKinney, 2019).

References

• American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Foulk, T., & Maccarone, L. (2021). Ethical considerations in public observations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104035.
• Rosenbaum, M., & McKinney, R. (2019). Naturalistic Observation and Ethical Research Practices. Research Ethics Review, 15(2), 45-56.