Chapter Review Questions
1) Describe the basic purpose of IRBs and the reasons research psychologists have criticized them.
a. Institutional review boards (IRBs) were put in to place to assure the health and safety of all research participants and to make sure all research is being conducted to the APA’s standard of ethics. Since people without specialties are required to be one each panel it is often times argued that many propels are denied because these boards may fail to get the merit of the work due to a lack of understanding the material. People also argue that the boards may not be focused enough on psychological studies and based in the medical field. This requires the researchers to add irrelevant content to their studies. IRB’s
…show more content…
How can the use of deception be reconciled with the concept of informed consent?
a. Deception may be used in the event that they data cannot collected in any other way without the participants tainting by behaving unnaturally.
Example: A study is conducted on the bystander effect. Several people are put into a room where they are asked to answer a questionnaire about their participation in campus events. In the next a person “falls” from the top of a ladder and are calling for help. The researchers then record how long it takes for one of the participants to respond to the person in the other room. This is an example of deception. If the participants knew they were being tested on the bystander effect they would have responded much quicker and thus tainting the data.
4) Describe the two main purposes of a debrief-ing session. When might a full debriefing be delayed until the experiment is completed?
a. Dehoaxing: Reveal to the participant the theory and purpose of the research. Except in cases where deception is used. In this case information is offered when the research has been completed.
b. Desensitizing: Provide participants with care to reinstate them to their previous state of
…show more content…
From the stand-point of the APA’s code of ethics, which components could cause problems with an IRB? Explain how you might defend each study to an IRB.
In a field experiment, a woman (who was actu-ally part of the experiment) stood by her car on the side of a 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-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 (Bryan & Test, 1967).
a. Some of the problems that the IRB may have with this experiments is the fact that the participants are not giving informed consent and they are technically in danger if they get out of their car to help on the side of a freeway. They may also find conflict with the fact that there are conductors coming in direct contact with the subject by being part of the experiment itself. However, since deception is being used one could argue that debriefing may answer any questions the participants have after the study is over and if the road is controlled the risks of the participants is minimized. One could also argue that the experiment could not be conducted without placing a plant where the experimenter wasn’t directly
In the second experiment, Perillo did the same format at the experiment above however, instead of false incriminating evidence they used a bluff. The bluff was added after the computer crashed by saying they have “recorded all of their key strokes” and have a camera in the back recording” (Perillo, Kassin). The thought that the key stroke calculator and the camera would help prove them innocent, the majority of the participants confessed “22 of 38 (57.9%)” (Perillo, Kassin). The third experiment involved a sort of game show where a group of the participants were put in a room and had to answer questions. They were told if they cheated that it would be very bad for their scholar record. One group was put in a room and had no one attempt have them cheat. The other room used a confederate to act like they don’t know the answers and ask for help, whether the person answered or not was what was recorded. At the end the ones who didn’t respond were let go and the once who even responded with no were confronted and accused of cheating. They said they had a camera in the back and room recording the session and knew
One of the last types of ways investigators are coached to detect deception is in the behavioral attitudes of a person being interviewed such as being unconcerned or over anxious (Kassin, 2005). The success rate of looking for these cues are very successful in telling if an individual is being deceitful and has surpassed any laboratory tests conducted on the subject. The laboratory test however did reveal some interesting facts. The research showed that people who had training and experience did not score better than the control group who received no training. In fact all individuals scored at the chance level with the people who had training scored just above chance or at the chance level. To check if special training in the detection of deception was more accurate a study ...
IRBs review all aspects of the researchers' project: the study design, the recruitment process, the participant population, the informed consent document and process, the risk/benefit ratio, privacy and confidentiality, data storage and protection, and safeguards for vulnerable participants (University of St. Francis, n.d.). In this way, participants' rights are protected because the effort is made even before the research begins. The review process ensures that participants are chosen fairly and adequately and the information collected during research is safeguarded through collection, use, and storage. Research using human participants is such an important part of medicine that it is imperative it is performed in a way that its intrigue is not compromised. The Institutional Review Board Process Applying for exempt research study approval from the IRB at the University of St. Francis involves submitting a copy of the work, an application, and a statement explaining why the researcher believes the study would be exempt from expedited or full-level IRB review approval.
David Rosenhans experiment contained two parts; the first was admitting pseudo-patients into psychiatric hospitals without the doctors or nurses knowledge. David Rosenhan and his participants all willingly committed themselves to the psychiatric hospital. “8 people without any history of psychiatric illness presented themselves at various mental hospitals. Each of these pseudo-patients arrived at the admissions office complaining of a single (feigned) symptom: vague auditory hallucinations” (Scribner). All of the participants came from a different background and were admitted into several different hospitals.
To sum things up, the ethical demeanor of research involves respect for the safety and rights of subjects during the sequence of the trial. This includes protecting privacy and confidentiality, monitoring the condition of research subjects to assure their safety, terminating study participation in the case of hostile events, and notifying enrolled subjects about new risks, benefits, or other information that may bear upon subjects’ decisions to continue enrollment in the research. As new evidence shows itself, trial investigators and data safety monitoring boards (DSMBs) can alter the study plan, initiate notice of enrolled subjects, make changes to the informed consent policies, or stop the trials earlier than intended. Investigators should soon classify a technique for ensuring effective communication between the IRB and DSMB throughout these studies.
Police often use deception as a form of discretion in law enforcement. Drug smuggling, pornography rings, and fences of stolen merchandise are investigated using undercover work or informants. Blue lies are used to control a
Richard Gunderman asks the question, "Isn 't there something inherently wrong with lying, and “in his article” Is Lying Bad for Us?" Similarly, Stephanie Ericsson states, "Sure I lie, but it doesn 't hurt anything. Or does it?" in her essay, "The Ways We Lie.” Both Gunderman and Ericsson hold strong opinions in regards to lying and they appeal to their audience by incorporating personal experiences as well as references to answer the questions that so many long to confirm.
A lie is a false statement with the purposely intentions to deceive, a falsehood or falsification. Since the beginning of time when Adam and Eve were created by god, and Adams fibbed about eating the apple, lying and deception has been the consistent future of human behavior or sin. The history of the polygraph has a similar long history with the reliable means of detecting deception. Researchers believed that this type of work must be viewed with care and cautiously being that the ones who tell the lies know that they are undergoing research and likewise know they do not comparatively behave as they would in real-life settings. There has been numerous of studies that attempt to identify specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors associated with lying. The polygraph does not detect a lie; it detects respiration and cardiovascular activity. The assumption is that liars will become more nervous that one who tells the truth. In the attempt to deceit the test through unconscious actions, many different behaviors have been associated with liars deception, including gazing aversion, the increase or decrease in movement, the amount of pauses or hesitations, slow of the speech rate, and speech errors.
People face ethical dilemmas every day. But it is perhaps, most prevalent in the law enforcement profession. Law enforcement officers face ethical dilemmas constantly. Some of the ethical issues that police face each day are: racial profiling, officer discretion, police officer loyalty, police officer abuse, and interrogatory deception. This paper will discuss the purpose of interrogatory deception, ways in which it is used, some of the current debates over the practice, and a landmark ruling in the Miranda case of 1966 which attempted to cease the use of intimidation and coercion practices of the police.
In “The Ways We Lie,” by Stephanie Ericsson, she defines various types of lying and uses quotations at the beginning of each description as a rhetorical strategy. Throughout the reading she uses similar references or discussion points at the beginning and ending of each paragraph. Most believe lying is wrong, however, I believe lying is acceptable in some situations and not others when Stephanie Ericsson is asked, “how was your day.” In “The Ways We Lie,” she lies to protect her husband’s feelings, therefore, I think people lie because they are afraid of the consequences that come with telling the truth.
There are several different types of deception such as a the myth’s we grow up believing in, a little white lie, trickery, pranks, manipulation, and lying. Each one has been classified as a degree of deceit, but we must take into account all of the reasons behind each one. Some of the deceptions are meant to keep our imagination and dreams alive; others are meant to save someone’s feelings; and a majority of them are lies that are meant to save ourselves or manipulate someone into doing us a favor.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6: 282-293.
Deceit is the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misleading the truth. Deception has always been a part of psychology and researchers have always determined that in the majority of cases the deceptions are harmless or minimal, yet they still exist. As a result of Mailgram’s experiment, deceptive research operations are now under harsh examination all across the discipline. It is obvious that Milgram’s intent was not to revol...
The primary weakness of the APA is that it only applies to professional conduct and not private life. According to Pipes, Holstein, and Aguirre (2005), "APA codes apply within their role as psychologists...they may, with impunity from the Code, demean individuals of a particular gender or a particular religion with whom they interact only on a personal basis" (p. 326). While the APA has enforceable standards, the preamble and general principles are aspirational and seek to create individuals whose professional character will successfully integrate into their personal lives. For example, Jenny 's consultation with Rhonda went from a professional consultation to a gossip session on other issues within organization; when they failed "to guard against personal, financial, social, organizational or political factors" (APA, 2010) that might influence their ability to objectively resolve the present ethical dilemma. While the APA provide ethical principles and a professional code of conduct provide a foundation for resolving ethical dilemmas, it is not exhaustive and individuals should seek and use other models to help them resolve their ethical dilemmas, such as the eight-step decision
Something that complicates the concept of passive deception is what I call the question of importance. Passive deceit does not exist in every occasion in which information is withheld, but something is withheld in every instance of passive deception. So, what determines whether or not the withholding of information is sufficient enough to also qualify as deception? I contend that the two qualities, which I call determinants of deception, that separate deception from simple withholding are importance and likelihood, the latter is only necessary in situations with a certain level of doubt or during