Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Ethics in psychology refers to the set of principles and guidelines that protect the rights, dignity, and wellbeing of people who take part in research or receive psychological services.

It ensures that psychologists act responsibly, avoid harm, respect confidentiality, and use honesty and fairness in their work.

Ethical standards are vital because they build trust, safeguard participants, and prevent the kinds of abuses seen in past controversial studies

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are set by the British Psychological Society (BPS), while in the United States they are published by the American Psychological Association (APA).

These codes aim to protect participants, uphold the reputation of psychology, and safeguard researchers.

Balancing Risks and Benefits

Ethical decisions are rarely clear-cut.

A study may cause distress or harm, yet also produce discoveries that benefit individuals or society.

As Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) note, failing to conduct research can also carry costs.

The guiding principle is that participants’ interests must always come first when weighed against the aims of researchers.

Role of Ethics Committees

To ensure this balance, all studies must be reviewed before implementation.

• US: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).

• UK: Departmental, Institutional, or External Ethics Committees (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

Codes of Practice

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research:

---

Informed Consent

Before a study begins, researchers must explain the purpose, procedures, risks, and potential benefits, and then obtain participants’ voluntary agreement to take part.

Consent must be:

• Informed – participants clearly understand what they are agreeing to.

• Voluntary – given freely, without pressure, coercion, or excessive inducement.

• Rational – the person has the capacity to weigh the decision.

Adults (18+) can provide their own consent, while parents or guardians must provide consent for minors.

---

What Participants Must Be Told

To make a meaningful decision, participants should receive clear information about:

• The voluntary nature of participation, and that refusal has no consequences.

• The purpose of the research and what it involves.

• All foreseeable risks and discomforts (both physical and psychological).

• The procedures they will undergo.

• Potential benefits for society and/or individuals.

• The expected duration of participation.

• Who to contact with questions, concerns, or in case of harm.

• Their right to confidentiality and how their data will be protected.

• Their right to withdraw at any time without penalty.

Consent forms should be accompanied by a plain-language participant information sheet and researcher contact details.

---

Special Considerations

Researchers have a duty to respect participants’ dignity and autonomy, being sensitive to power imbalances between researcher and participant.

Consent processes must be adapted to the needs of the study population:

• Children and adolescents – require parental/guardian consent as well as the child’s own agreement where possible.

• Vulnerable groups (e.g., psychiatric patients, people with intellectual disabilities) – capacity must be assessed individually, with support provided to aid comprehension.

• Cultural context – language and procedures should be tailored to the participant’s background.

• Inducements – payments or rewards must be fair and not so large that they unduly influence participation.

---

Alternatives and Ongoing Consent

When direct consent is not possible, researchers may use presumptive consent, asking a comparable group how they would feel about participation.

However, this method is limited, since imagined reactions often differ from actual experience.

Importantly, consent is an ongoing process, not a one-off form.

Researchers should check participants’ willingness throughout, remain alert to discomfort, and allow them to withdraw at any time.

The BPS also advises researchers to keep a record of ethical decision-making, particularly when dilemmas arise.

---

Debrief

Purpose of Debriefing

Debriefing is a key ethical requirement in psychology.

After a study, researchers must explain the purpose of the research, give participants the chance to ask questions, and address any potential harm.

The aim is to:

• Educate participants about the study.

• Correct misconceptions or anxieties.

• Restore dignity and wellbeing, leaving participants in a similar state of mind as when they entered the study (Aronson, 1988).

As Harris (1998) put it, the goal is to ensure participants leave with “a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted.”

---

What Debriefing Should Include

An effective debrief goes beyond a polite thank you.

It should include:

• Study aims – explaining what the researcher was investigating and why.

• Participant’s role – clarifying how their participation contributed.

• Deception disclosure – if deception was used, participants must be told and given a clear justification for why it was necessary.

• Opportunity for questions – participants must be encouraged to ask questions, and researchers are obliged to answer them openly and fully.

• Comprehension check – experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure participants actually understand the debriefing.

Debriefing should take place as soon as possible, ideally immediately after participation, and use plain, accessible language.

---

Ongoing Responsibility for Participant Welfare

Debriefing is not just the end of a study; it reflects the researcher’s ongoing duty of care.

Ethical researchers should:

• Monitor for distress – watch for signs of discomfort during or after participation.
• Provide support – offer resources or referrals if sensitive issues were triggered.
• Follow up if needed – check in when participation may have long-term effects (e.g., socially sensitive research).
• Reflect and record – document ethical concerns raised to improve future studies.

---

Exceptions and Limitations

Although debriefing is normally mandatory, there are rare exceptions:

• Methodological reasons – in some studies, immediate debriefing could compromise validity if participants might share details with others who have not yet taken part.

• Risk of harm from debriefing – for example, revealing deception to children in a way that could create distress or undermine trust.

In these cases, researchers must:

• Seek explicit approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee.

• Justify why a full or immediate debrief is not possible.

• Provide a delayed or partial debrief when appropriate, ensuring participants are not left permanently misinformed.

---

Protection of Participants

Researchers must protect participants from physical, psychological, social, and emotional harm throughout the research process.

This obligation covers both direct harm (e.g., pain, stress) and indirect harm (e.g., reputational damage, privacy violations).

Participants should leave the study in a state of no worse wellbeing than when they entered.

---

Types of Harm to Avoid

Researchers should take active steps to prevent:

• Physical harm – injury, illness, excessive fatigue, or physical risk.

• Psychological harm – anxiety, stress, guilt, loss of self-esteem, embarrassment, or trauma.

• Social harm – stigmatization, stereotyping, or damage to relationships.

• Economic or legal harm – loss of employment, financial costs, or exposure to criminal liability if sensitive data is mishandled.

---

Acceptable Risk Threshold

Researchers must carefully manage the level of risk participants are exposed to, ensuring that harm is minimized and never excessive.

Key expectations are:

• No greater than everyday life – risks should not exceed what participants face in normal daily activities.
• Higher risks require approval – any added risk must be minimized and cleared by an ethics committee or IRB.
• Protect participants first – risk–benefit analysis must prioritize welfare over research outcomes.
• Stop if unsafe – studies should not proceed if risks cannot be adequately managed.

---

Special Safeguards for Vulnerable Groups

Extra protections are required when working with populations such as:

• Children and adolescents – sessions should be short, age-appropriate, and avoid unnecessary fatigue or confusion.

• Elderly adults – consider health conditions, mobility, and cognitive load.

• People with intellectual or developmental disabilities – ensure consent and participation are tailored to their comprehension level.

• Psychiatric patients – safeguard against triggering symptoms or distress.

• Marginalized groups – ensure participation does not reinforce stigma or discrimination.

In all cases, capacity to consent and cope must be individually assessed, and procedures adapted accordingly.

---

Monitoring During the Study

Ethical responsibility continues throughout the research process, requiring researchers to remain alert to participants’ wellbeing.

This involves:

• Watching for distress – continuously observe for signs of discomfort, fatigue, or anxiety.

• Reinforcing autonomy – remind participants of their right to withdraw at any time, without penalty.

• Building in check-ins – include breaks or wellbeing assessments in sensitive or demanding studies.

---

Managing Unexpected Harm

Even with careful planning, harm can occur. Researchers must:

• Intervene immediately if distress becomes evident.
• Offer therapeutic debriefing or psychological support if needed.
• Provide referrals to professional services if harm persists after the study.

Famous examples like Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment show the dangers of failing to stop a study when participants are clearly suffering.

---

Deception

Deception in research occurs when participants are not given the full truth about the study. It can take two main forms:

1. Active deception (commission): participants are deliberately misled, e.g.:

   • Using confederates (actors posing as real participants).

   • Giving false feedback (e.g., telling participants they failed a test when they did not).

   • Creating staged events or giving deceptive instructions.

2. Passive deception (omission): researchers withhold information, such as:

   • Not explaining the true aim of the study.

   • Describing the task ambiguously so participants draw incorrect conclusions.

Both forms reduce participants’ ability to give informed consent and limit autonomy, which is why deception is considered ethically sensitive.

---

Why Deception Is Used

Some psychological questions cannot be investigated honestly if participants are fully aware of the study’s true purpose.

When people know what is being tested, they may consciously or unconsciously change their behavior to fit expectations, a phenomenon known as demand characteristics.

To avoid this, researchers have sometimes relied on deception.

Classic examples:

• Milgram (1963) – participants believed they were administering painful electric shocks to study obedience.
• Asch (1951) – confederates gave obviously wrong answers in a line-judging task to study conformity.
• Schachter & Singer (1962) – participants were misled about an injection’s true effects to test theories of emotion.

These studies show how deception has led to groundbreaking insights but also caused lasting debate about ethical costs.

---

Ethical Safeguards

Ethics codes (APA, BPS) state that deception may be used only when strict conditions are met:

• Last resort – deception is allowed only if no non-deceptive method can answer the research question.

• Scientific justification – the knowledge gained must have strong potential benefits to science, society, or participants.

• Independent approval – deception must be judged acceptable by an ethics committee or IRB.

• Minimal impact – deception should be as limited as possible and must not cause lasting physical, psychological, or social harm.

• Anticipate reactions – researchers should consider cultural context and whether participants are likely to feel angry, betrayed, or harmed once deception is revealed.

---

Debriefing After Deception

Because deception interferes with informed consent, thorough debriefing is essential. This involves:

• Revealing the truth – explaining the actual purpose of the study as soon as possible.

• Justifying the deception – clarifying why misleading participants was scientifically necessary.

• Reducing harm – addressing potential negative reactions (e.g., guilt, embarrassment, anger).

• Offering support – providing reassurance or referrals if distress lingers.

If participants are likely to be distressed or refuse consent once they learn the truth, then the study is considered ethically unacceptable.

---

Consequences of Poorly Managed Deception

When deception is not handled carefully, it can have damaging consequences for both participants and the discipline of psychology.

• Loss of trust – participants may feel betrayed, leading to reluctance to volunteer in future studies.

• Reputational harm – psychology as a discipline may be seen as manipulative or exploitative.

• Long-term participant distress – guilt, lowered self-esteem, or suspicion of researchers.

• Historical backlash – controversial studies like Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s have shaped modern ethics codes precisely because of concerns about deception and harm.

---

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is a core ethical obligation in psychology.

It shows respect for individuals, promotes honest and open participation, and reduces risks such as embarrassment, stigma, or legal repercussions.

Participants must be assured that any information they provide will be handled with care and not made personally identifiable unless they have explicitly given consent.

For example, names should never appear in published reports, and data should be presented in ways that prevent identification.

Methods of Protecting Confidentiality

The steps taken to safeguard privacy should match the methodology and risks of the study.

In face-to-face research, this may involve coding systems that replace names with numbers, restricted access to data files, and secure physical storage.

In online research, additional challenges arise, such as the risk of third-party access.

Here, encryption, password protection, and secure data servers are essential, and participants should be informed of these protections.

Researchers can further protect privacy by collecting only the information strictly necessary: for instance, recording participants’ age rather than their full birthdate.

Limits of Confidentiality

Researchers must also be transparent about the limits of confidentiality.

Participants have a right to know whether there are circumstances where their information may be disclosed.

While confidentiality is the default, there can be exceptions.

For example, when researchers encounter information that suggests risk of serious harm to the participant or others.

Disclosure Dilemmas

One recurring ethical dilemma is whether to disclose information about a participant’s criminal behavior.

In most jurisdictions, researchers have no automatic legal duty to report crimes uncovered during a study.

Decisions to disclose must weigh the researcher’s primary duty to the participant against their duty to protect the wider community.

This judgment is always contextual and should align with both the research aims and professional ethical codes.

---

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants must be free to leave a study at any time if they feel uncomfortable, without penalty or pressure. This right extends not only to their participation but also to the data they have provided.

Communicating the Right

Researchers have a responsibility to clearly explain the right to withdraw at all stages of participation.

• Inform at the start – participants should be told clearly that they can withdraw at any point, for any reason.

• Remind during the study – this right should be reinforced throughout, especially in longer or more demanding experiments.

• Reassure at the end – participants must be given a final opportunity to withdraw their data after debriefing.

---

Avoiding Pressure

Participants must never feel pressured or coerced into continuing against their will.

• No coercion – they should not feel obligated to continue, even if they worry about “spoiling” the research.

• Incentives clarified – if payment or course credit is offered, participants must be reassured they will still receive it even if they withdraw.

• Example of misuse – in Milgram’s obedience study, participants were pressured to continue despite distress, a clear breach of modern ethical standards.

---

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

Why Standard Ethics Are Not Enough

Traditionally, psychologists assumed that if they complied with the BPS or APA codes – ensuring participants were not deceived, humiliated, or harmed, and that debriefing and confidentiality were provided – then their work was ethically unproblematic.

However, socially sensitive research raises issues that extend beyond the treatment of participants.

Even when no direct harm is caused to individuals, the way findings are interpreted, publicized, and applied can have far-reaching consequences for groups, communities, and society.

llustrative Examples

These examples show that the main ethical concern is not always the treatment of participants, but the social consequences of research outcomes.

Childcare and Cognitive Development

Caughy et al. (1994) found that middle-class children in early daycare scored lower on cognitive tests than those raised at home.

No participants were harmed, consent was obtained, and confidentiality preserved.

Yet, once published, the findings risked stigmatizing daycare, causing anxiety for parents, and influencing public opinion or policy on childcare provision.

Race and Intelligence

IQ testing in the US has consistently shown Black Americans scoring lower on average than white Americans.

Although participants were not harmed directly, the publication of such results has historically been weaponized to justify discriminatory hiring, educational segregation, and eugenics.

This demonstrates how SSR can unintentionally reinforce systemic inequality.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

1. The social group being studied: Findings may stigmatize or disadvantage an ethnic, gender, or social group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
2. Friends and relatives of those participates: Case studies may reveal private information or attach stigma. Example: Genie’s mother, who became infamous after her daughter’s case study.
3. The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
4. The institution in which the research is conducted. Universities or funding bodies may be discredited if the research is controversial or misused.

Four Core Ethical Concerns in SSR

1. The Research Question – framing a question (e.g., “Are some races less intelligent?”) may itself perpetuate harmful assumptions.

2. Treatment of Participants – individuals must still be protected from harm, embarrassment, or coercion.

3. Institutional Context – the motives of sponsors (e.g., government, military, corporations) may bias research goals.

4. Interpretation & Application – findings may be misrepresented by the media, policymakers, or public, leading to real-world harm.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

• Privacy – questions about sexuality, trauma, or family life can feel intrusive and offensive, even if data are anonymized.

• Confidentiality – leakage of sensitive information (e.g., HIV status, criminal history) could cause reputational, legal, or health consequences.

• Sound Methodology – SSR demands high methodological rigor. Flawed methods can still influence policy because lay audiences cannot easily detect weaknesses.

  • Example: Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies, despite limitations, shaped childcare policy for decades.

• Deception – misleading findings (or careless interpretation) may create false public beliefs, e.g., overstating parental responsibility for child outcomes.

• Informed Consent – participants should understand potential wider implications of their involvement, not just immediate risks.

• Justice & Equity – avoid research that exacerbates prejudice or denies treatment to some groups for comparison.

• Scientific Freedom vs. Responsibility – researchers have a right to investigate, but this must be balanced with social responsibility.

• Ownership of Data – sensitive data may be misused if fully public. Questions remain: should politically charged findings be freely accessible, or restricted until properly contextualized?

• Practice reflexivity – acknowledge your own values and biases and those of participants, and how these may shape design, analysis, and conclusions.

• Cost–Benefit Analysis – costs often extend beyond individuals to entire communities. Since participants rarely benefit directly, researchers must ensure wider social benefits clearly outweigh risks.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”. American Psychologist, 19(6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children. Child development, 65(2), 457-471.

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.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5), 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research. American psychologist, 43(1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf