Psychological Research Online: Report of Board of Scientific Affairs' Advisory Group on the Conduct of Research on the Internet.

As the Internet has changed communication, commerce, and the distribution of information, so too it is changing psychological research. Psychologists can observe new or rare phenomena online and can do research on traditional psychological topics more efficiently, enabling them to expand the scale and scope of their research. Yet these opportunities entail risk both to research quality and to human subjects. Internet research is inherently no more risky than traditional observational, survey, or experimental methods. Yet the risks and safeguards against them will differ from those characterizing traditional research and will themselves change over time. This article describes some benefits and challenges of conducting psychological research via the Internet and offers recommendations to both researchers and institutional review boards for dealing with them. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A public health perspective on "The ethics of asking and not asking about abuse."

Comments on the article by K. Becker-Blease and J. Freyd (see record 2006-03947-003), which provides a thought-provoking and important perspective regarding the ethics of researchers asking or not asking adults about abuse they experienced as children. Many of these authors' concerns with research on abuse during childhood apply equally to abuse and violence experienced at all life stages. Focusing on intimate partner violence (IPV), we wish to amplify upon and respond to their observations from the perspective of public health scientists involved in large-scale telephone survey research on violence (including family violence, IPV, sexual violence, and suicide). We strongly agree with Becker-Blease and Freyd that decisions not to ask about abuse play directly into the social forces that perpetuate IPV and other forms of violence as pervasive and pernicious social and public health problems. From a public health perspective, the question is not whether to ask but how to ask about participants' experiences with violence and abuse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

It's OK to ask about past abuse.

Comments on the article by K. Becker-Blease and J. Freyd (see record 2006-03947-003), which addressed the ethics of asking and not asking research subjects about abuse. In their article, they systematically reviewed often-voiced concerns about and objections to asking questions about child maltreatment in survey research. They concluded that by failing to ask about a history of child maltreatment, an important predictor of later-life problems may be overlooked. The current authors discuss the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study, which provides strong evidence of the association between early traumatic experiences and some of the major public health problems facing our nation. Results from the ACE study have shown an association between traumatic childhood experiences and a broad range of health outcomes, including liver disease, ischemic heart disease, reproductive health, and mental illness, as well as a variety of health risks such as obesity, smoking, and alcoholism. The associations that these studies showed demonstrate that researchers studying health outcomes who do not ask study subjects about traumatic childhood experiences are overlooking an important risk factor for many of the major health issues of our day. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Asking research participants about trauma and abuse.

Comments on the article by K. Becker-Blease and J. Freyd (see record 2006-03947-003), which presented a timely, persuasive, and well-documented argument to psychologists about why it is important to consider asking about a history of abuse and/or trauma in research studies. As a social psychologist studying victims' disclosures of sexual assault, social reactions received from others following disclosure, and the effects of these reactions on victims, S. E. Ullman expands on just a few of the 10 concerns discussed in their article regarding risks associated with trauma and abuse disclosure that may help researchers decide about whether to ask such questions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

To ask, or not to ask, about abuse--New Zealand research.

Comments on the article by K. Becker-Blease and J. Freyd (see record 2006-03947-003), which addressed the ethics of asking and not asking research subjects about abuse. J. Read reviews some clinical research in New Zealand in which there was a low level of inquiry about abuse by mental health staff, and notes that this is consistent with the results of similar studies elsewhere. He agrees with Becker-Blease and Freyd that there are many consequences to researchers and clinicians of not asking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Research participants telling the truth about their lives: The ethics of asking and not asking about abuse.

Most discussions of the ethics of self-report research on abuse and interpersonal violence focus on the risks of asking participants about their experiences. An important element of the cost-benefit analysis--the costs of not asking about child abuse--has largely been ignored. Furthermore, little research has been conducted on the costs and benefits of child abuse research, leaving researchers to make decisions based on individual beliefs about such issues as the prevalence of abuse, the likelihood of disclosure, the effects of child abuse, and the ability of abuse survivors to give informed consent. The authors suggest that these beliefs tend to overemphasize survivors' vulnerability and ignore the costs of avoiding asking about abuse. In fact, these beliefs may reinforce societal avoidance of abuse and ultimately harm abuse survivors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ethics of asking about abuse and the harm of "don't ask, don't tell."

Replies to comments by J. Read (see record 2007-07130-012), D. Gleaves et al (see record 2007-07130-013), V. Edwards et al (see record 2007-07130-014), M. Black and R. Black (see record 2007-07130-015), and S. Ullman (see record 2007-07130-016), which raised important points about the authors' original article (see record 2006-03947-003). Those comments extend our thinking about how to ask participants about abuse in an ethical way. Together, the comments point to the importance of researchers examining our own reasons for asking--or not asking--about abuse and of paying attention to how we respond when we ask. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on "The Use of Human Subjects in Psychological Research".

While Irwin Berg's report on "The Use of Human Subjects in Psychological Research" (Amer. Psychologist, 1954, 9, pp. 108-111) places a salutary emphasis upon the precautions experimental psychologists should take both to protect the subjects' welfare and to prevent the public's wrath, other precautions need to be borne in mind lest a fear of being classed with the Nazi "doctors of infamy" causes an unhealthy swing to the other extreme of inactivity in particular areas of research. In many areas where research is desperately needed, few fruitful investigations could be conducted if the subjects were to have the advance knowledge the Nuremberg principles seem to demand. These medically oriented principles in general require considerable revision before they can be applied directly to the realm of psychology. Another factor that must be recognized is that an experiment conducted solely with voluntary subjects may suffer thereby a delimitation often disregarded. A sample of voluntary subjects may not be truly representative of the universe under scrutiny. Volunteers may differ from nonvolunteers in ways germane to experimental assumptions, hypotheses, and conclusions. From these considerations three suggestions are provided. 1. The Nuremberg principles should be translated into psychological terms through an accumulation of illustrative incidents and a resultant formulation of additional principles to be included under Section 4.3 of Ethical Standards of Psychologists. 2. Remove possible harmful side effects of ethical research. And, 3. Experimenters who rely on the use of volunteers should consider the possible influence upon their findings of the voluntary nature of the subjects and, where necessary, should qualify their conclusions accordingly. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What are we teaching our students by not asking about abuse?

Comments on the article by K. Becker-Blease and J. Freyd (see record 2006-03947-003), which addressed the ethics of asking and not asking research subjects about abuse. Their article encourages researchers to more openly consider the risks and benefits of not asking research participants about abuse. They also point out that the alleged risks are not supported by evidence, and there are costs associated with avoiding the questions. On the basis of some of the current authors' own work, they briefly comment on additional benefits of asking about abuse as well as an additional alleged risk involved in asking. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethical Procedures: Comment.

Comments on a note from Dr. Frederick C. Thorne appearing in the March issue of American Psychologist (1956, 11, 152), entitled "Psychologists, Heal Thyselves!" Thorne's note addressed the handling by the American Psychological Association of ethics cases involving individual members. Here, the current author seeks to present the application and enforcement of the ethical code by the Association as a much less moralistic, judgmental, and punitive process than Thorne portrays it. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Current practices and problems in the use of college students for psychological research.

A survey of 60 leading Universities was made to determine present practices and policies regarding the use of college students as subjects in psychological research. The methodological implications arising from differences in procedures used for recruiting subjects and arranging their experimental appointments were noted. The study also examined procedures employed by investigators to protect the physical and psychological safety of the participating students. Current procedures were found to vary considerably and it was recommended that they be reexamined from both the methodological and ethical aspects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reweaving deception's tangled web.

Recent trends in social psychological research toward greater use of field settings and unobtrusive measurement was reviewed. The following issues bear on this concern: (1) the general public may be more intolerant of being used as research subjects than are college students; (2) disguised observation may tend to aggravate a post-Watergate concern over invasion of privacy; (3) greater harm to participants in some field research may be likely because laboratory control is greatly lacking; (4) because concern with revealing social psychological data to the public may jeopardize future research, scant feedback is provided to participants. Other ethical problems and possible solutions were mentioned. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ad hoc committee on social impact of psychological assessment.

"Broadly, the Committee is concerned with assessment in terms of what psychologists should do, what they do, and how they are seen. This includes keeping APA informed regarding the perceptions of various audiences, including psychologists, of psychological assessment and its impact on society. The Committee has recommended the preparation of a technical report concerning desirable standards of practice and research in the field of assessment. They also recognize the need to educate lay users of tests. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Using deception ethically: Practical research guidelines for researchers and reviewers.

This article reviews highlights in the literature on existing recommendations for ethical use of deception in psychological research. We conclude that ethical guidelines and aspirational statements set out by research policies and advisory panels on ethics must eventually be operationalized into concrete terms when introducing deception into a research design. Specific directives for using deception are especially important for new researchers developing projects and also for university/departmental reviewers who are being asked to evaluate the ethical standing of proposed research. We offer a checklist designed to cultivate the understanding of junior researchers and to facilitate the review process by instantiating the relevant general guidelines into a set of Y/N questions about intended research. Finally, the article presents empirical data from researchers and ethics reviewers who provided end-user evaluations of the tool. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Contrary Opinion--and a Reassurance: Comment.

Comments on a note from Dr. Frederick C. Thorne appearing in the March issue of American Psychologist (1956, 11, 152), entitled "Psychologists, Heal Thyselves!" Thorne's note addressed the handling by the American Psychological Association of ethics cases involving individual members. Here, the current author takes exception to Thorne's characterization of the ethics review process as "moralistic, judgmental, and punitive rather than constructive, rehabilitative, and healing." The author, a member (and one-time chairman) of the Committee on Ethics of the APA (1938-40), attempts to contribute a better understanding of the services furnished by the Association's Committee on Scientific and Professional Ethics and Conduct. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment: Use of Electronic Computers in Psychological Research.

Comments that on the Leavitt, Stone, and Wrigley discussion (October, 1954 American Psychologist) of the possibilities of a Psychological Electronic Computer (Psycheac) which, would be useful to APA members. The idea proposed by these authors is an excellent one, and efforts should be made to carry out some of their suggestions to "reduce routine computational drudgery." He presents an analysis in an effort to provide one example of the value and efficiency of an electronic computer in analyses of psychological data. An article by Meer, Stein, and Geertsma (January 1955, American Psychologist) is concerned with an analysis of the interrelationships among the Miller Analogies Test (MAT) and Wechsler-Bellevue (W-B) subtests. Their data is used in example. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Beckman-Bishop.

Responds to the paper by L. Beckman and B.R. Bishop (see record 1990-56846-001 and asserts that the final section of that paper on "Safeguards" is central to the research ethics issue and define the relationship between the experimenter and research subjects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Deceiving Experimental Subjects.

This comment discusses ethics in psychology, and the deception of experimental subjects in particular. One of the most frequently used techniques of control--often elaborated ingeniously--may be called "dissimulation" or, less neutrally, "deceit." In various ways the psychologist conceals the true purpose and conditions of the experiment, or positively misinforms the subjects, or exposes them to painful, embarrassing, or worse, experiences, without the subjects' knowledge of what is going on. Of course, every student of psychology is aware that naivete in the subjects is often desirable property; we all use it as a control device. However, it is quite possible that enthusiastic proponents of the miniature social situation have relied so heavily upon deceit as to raise the question of the proper bounds of such practices. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment: Semantics.

Letter comments that in recent years a succession of experimental (and other) textbooks have used (actually misused) the word "dangerous" in referring to concepts, research designs, conclusions. The word "danger" refers to physical menace or threat, thus may introduce confusion when used as indicated above. Adequate substitute words would include "misleading," "illusory," "untenable." The author goes on to provide examples. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comments on The Brain Watchers.

Comments on The Brain Watchers by M. L. Gross (see record 1964-04809-000), which presents a documented account of application of psychological tests, mostly personality, in industry and education at all levels. The present author argues that Gross presents his case with obvious hostility, and that exaggerations, sweeping generalities, and half-truths are found throughout the book and may tempt many serious psychologists (as human beings) to reject him outright. It is suggested that a realistic defense by the psychology profession should include at least two major elements at the beginning. First of all, it is argued that Gross has not revealed anything about test validity which is not common knowledge to any professionally trained psychologist. Second, it should be clearly emphasized that much of the writer's comments pertain to a certain segment of the psychological profession, and that many of his observations have been made on self-appointed testers with no professional status or recognition of any sort. Further, it should be added that we in the profession are much concerned about the unethical and haphazard uses of tests and the unsubstantiated claims of pseudopsychologists, and that we have ethics committees in the American Psychological Association and in most states which are endeavoring to protect the public through certification procedures and public education. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)