How should we treat participants in psychological research?
The treatment of participants in the research depends on the code of ethics stated by
the BPS and APA.
Ethics means to approach situations in order to define the right and wrong of what is
happening and what could happen. In research there is a guideline of ethical conduct that the
researcher has to follow within the experiment to the participant’s rights and dignity and also
consider legitimate interests of stakeholders such as funders, institutions, sponsors and
publics.
Moreover, there are different principles for the code of ethics depending on the type
of research it is being conducted:
“Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the
dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular
regard to people’s rights” (Code of Ethics and Conduct, 2018, p.5).
The “Ethics Standards” state that the researcher has to show respect to the participants
for their dignity and autonomy due to participating. That is, give rights to privacy, selfdetermination, personal liberty and natural justice. The researcher must not be biased, which
means he/she is respectful to the individual person, their gender, religion, cultural and role
differences including age, disabilities sexual orientation and race.
Following the code of Ethics, researchers should have the informed consent from the
participants through the explanation of what the research involves including risks, and
benefits, the nature of the research, and avoid any prejudiced or discriminatory practice.
If the participant accepts, they may also want for their data to be destroyed or
withdrawn; if this happens, then the researcher must apply the data protection legislation.
This also means that if the participant doesn’t wish to be anonymous, the data
collected will not reveal the identity of the participant, that happens only if the individual
gives a clear and unambiguous informed consent to the researcher.
The next step the researcher has to follow in order to adhere to the code of ethics is to
give the participant a “Debrief form” before the beginning of the research. This is, talk about
the findings and the procedure with the psychologist. Right from the start the participant
should have been given thorough information of what was being investigated in the research
and the purpose of why it was being investigated; with the psychologist they will have to
explain their role in the research.
The Debrief stage works as a Q&A, because the questions asked by the participants to
the researcher have to be answered in full honesty and as detailed as possible, otherwise there
will be misconceptions throughout the research and the participants might still have some
doubts about their role in the research resulting in anxiety, non-valid data, and non-reliable
data.
The Debrief gives participants the opportunity to clarify any doubts about the research
and psychologists should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants fully understand the
debrief.
“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the
participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge,
and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).
Furthermore, to stay within the code of ethics, the other issue is to “Protect the
Participants”, this means that those who are participating will not be caused distress;
furthermore, it means that the researcher cannot harm, embarrass or frighten any of the
participants because they must be protected from physical and psychological harm.
There are special cases where the participants are vulnerable groups such as elderly
people, disabled or children, hence give them special attention and care because they usually
have a short attention span.
However, it is not always easy to predict the risks of taking part in a study such as in
Zimbardo’s prisoner study “The Stanford Prison Experiment” where the guards had started
dehumanising and humiliate the prisoners only because they were the authorities.
For example, Zimbardo randomly assigned the roles to 24 men considered the most
physically and mentally stable, the most mature and least involved in antisocial behaviours.
Prisoners were given an ID to keep their identity anonymous within the fake prison which
was situated in the basement of Stanford’s University.
Three guards were performing 8-hours shifts a day and Dr. Zimbardo has told them
they could do anything they considered necessary to restrain order and make the prisoners
follow the prison rules.
Although, Zimbardo didn’t take in consideration the risks of such division between
the roles. The guards started to harass the prisoners, during the multiple counts, guards would
exercise control over them whilst the prisoners were developing a prion-like behaviour.
During free time instead of talking about their lives, Zimbardo stated that they were
discussing more about the situation in the prison and how to rebel against the guards.
On the second day, the prisoners rebelled against the authorities by barricading
themselves in the cells putting the bedframe in front of the cell gates. However, the guards
called for backup and used a fire extinguisher to push off the prisoners from the doors.
The code of Ethics wasn’t being respected here as they started dehumanising the
prisoners with physiological punishments such as push ups, stepping on their backs, etc. this
is only because Zimbardo stated that violence was not permitted nor tolerated. With the
rebellion the guards also became more derisive towards them and requested even greater
obedience from the prisoners. Later on, some prisoners such as #8612 and #819 had started to
develop acute emotional disturbance, uncontrollable crying and rage which is clearly against
the ethics of a research within the “Protection of participants’ well-being”.
Furthermore, there are some ethical issues within psychological research such as the
“Deception of information” which is where participants are wrongly informed or misled
about the nature and the purpose of the research.
This usually happens if the researcher knows that the experiment could be a tough one
to take into consideration on deciding to participate and they could mislead the participants in
different ways:

Deliberate misleading – e.g. staged manipulation in field settings;

Deception by omission – e.g. the researcher does not disclose full
information about the study or makes the information ambiguous to the
participant.
Even if it is considered unethical, there are some occasions where deception is the
only alternative for the research, although this has to be judged by an independent expert.
One type of experiment that clearly needed deception in order to work was
“Milgram’s study of obedience”. Participants were told that when they would answer
a question wrongfully, they would have been electroshocked. However, this was only
a misleading information to make them obey the researcher because no electro shocks
would have been given, yet the participants would listen to Milgram because of the
state of fear Milgram has had put in their minds.
Deception is also needed when there is no reason to give out clues and excessive
information about the study, because that would lead to less reliable data as
the participants would think they know what the researcher is looking for.
However, participants must be deceived as little as possible to not cause distress; if
they are feeling in distress when shown the true nature of the experiment during the stage of
debriefing, then the study must be considered unacceptable.
Some researchers state that deception can never be justified as it can violate an
individual’s right to choose to participate; causes lack of trust between the researcher and the
participant; builds a questionable basis on which to create discipline within the study even if
the deception is disclosed at the earliest opportunity that can occur.
A further ethical issue in research is the “Confidentiality” between the researcher and
the participant. The psychologist must give full disclosure on the data being a hundred
percent anonymous.
The researcher must also not to disclose any personal information about the
participant such as a criminal conviction, because they have no legal obligation to disclose
these information as they have to determine if it benefits more the result of the research or
take more in consideration the reaction from wider society for any private information
disclosed. Therefore, the individuals would have to talk about the nature of the research and
about the information that the participant allows to be disclosed. But this has to be set in the
context of the aims of the research.
The last ethical issue is “withdrawal from an investigation”, where participants should
be given free of leave a study at any time if things get too complicated into their feelings and
start to feel distress or uncomfortable. In results to them leaving, the researcher should tell
this before the study starts and when a participant decides to leave, the researcher could either
delete the data or the participant itself can withdraw theirs so that it doesn’t get divulgated
within the research report paper.
Within the research, participants may have pressure on their shoulders to keep going
with the study to not feel minimized between the other participants. Although, during his
experiment, Stanley Milgram designed a guide to not make participants have negative
thoughts about the choice of leaving the study.
Furthermore, most of the time the participants are paid or given extra credits for
participating in the study; so really, they should more care about that they wouldn’t achieve
the extra credits or the money if they withdraw from the study, even if they try to withdraw
the data at the final opportunity provided for the research.
Furthermore, there are principles for the best practice in ethics:
“Independence”, where an ethics review must be processed independently of the
research itself, this means that the process must be free from any bias and free from any
conflicts of interest between the researcher and the people reviewing the ethics protocol; an
external examinator should also be involved for any non-biased judgements.
“Competence”, where the research must be conducted by a competent body to create a
valid research protocol and document validation.
“Transparency and Accountability”, this means that there should not be any conflicts
between the researcher and the participant; the researcher must not lie or deceive the
participants to cause distrust in the nature of the experiment.
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical
principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html
APA (2017) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American
Psychological Association
Banyard, P. and Flanagan, C. (2005) Ethical issues and guidelines in psychology. Routledge,
London.
BPS (2014) Code of human research ethics. British Psychological Society, Leicester
BPS (2018) Code of Ethics and Conduct. British Psychological Society, Leicester
Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski
(Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York:
Oxford University Press.
McLeod, S. A. (2015, January 14). Psychology research ethics. Simply Psychology.
www.simplypsychology.org/Ethics.html
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet's question to the ethical conduct of
research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5), 561.
The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics.
www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf