Informed Consent
According to the British Psychological Society's ethical guidelines, before taking part in a psychological investigation, participants should be informed of the aims of the research and any aspects of it that might reasonably influence their decision to participate. Additionally, they should explain any other aspects that the participant enquires about (BPS 2005). They also state:
If harm, unusual discomfort, or other negative consequences for the individual’s future life might occur, the investigator must obtain the disinterested approval of independent advisors, inform the participants, and obtain informed, real consent from each of them.
In Zimbardo, Haney and Bank's (1971) Stanford Prison Simulation, the participants signed a consent form which stated:
I understand that participation in the research project will involve a loss of privacy, that I will be expected to participate for the full duration of the study, that I will only be released from participation for reasons of health deemed adequate by the medical advisers to the research project or for other reasons deemed appropriate by Dr. Philip Zimbardo, Principal Investigator of the project, and that I will be expected to follow directions from staff members of the project or from other participants in the research project.
Nevertheless, they were not informed that they would be arrested by a member of the Palo Alto Police Department and driven to the 'prison' in a police car with sirens wailing
A copy of the consent form used in the Stanford Prison Experiment can be found here (new window)
Deception
Acording to the BPS Ethical Guidelines, "The withholding of information or the misleading of participants is unacceptable if the participants are typically likely to object or show unease once debriefed." Nevertheless, it would be impossible to investigate many psychological processes without deception, so psychologists have a responsibility to:
(a) determine that alternative procedures avoiding concealment or
deception are not available;(b) ensure that the participants are provided with sufficient information
at the earliest stage; and(c) consult appropriately upon the way that the withholding of
information or deliberate deception will be received.
Milgram’s (1963, 1965) obedience studies were a controversial use of deception. Baumrind (1964), for example, accused Milgram of not protecting his participants from the stress and emotional conflict they experienced. Milgram (1974), however, claims that all participants were fully debriefed. This included giving them a report which detailed the procedure and results of experiments and a questionnaire concerning their feelings about the experiment:
- 84% of the participants claimed they were glad to have taken part
- Less than 2% were sorry to have taken part.
- 80% felt that more experiments of that kind should be conducted.
- 74% learned something of personal importance.
Milgram claims that the research is morally justified by the fact that it was endorsed by those who took part. One criticism of this, however, is that the participants are effectively giving their consent after the experiment has taken place. Moreover, the 2% who were very sorry they had taken part did not consent (even afterwards) to what may have been a psychologically damaging experience. Aronson (1988), nevertheless, claims that deception was the only way that this piece of research could be conducted. Otherwise, the behaviour being studied would not be consistent with how people behave in real situations. Aronson claims that deception is often the best and only way to obtain useful information about important situations.
Debriefing
If participants are aware that they have taken part in an experiment they should be debriefed. This is informing the participants of the nature of the research and the expected results. According to Aronson (1988), the experimenter should ensure that participants leave the experiment in a frame of mind that is as sound as it was when they entered. Sometimes effects may be produced by the experiment that a verbal description can not negate, active intervention may be needed.
| Debriefing in Zimbardo et al.’s Prison Experiment. In this study the participants had group and individual debriefing sessions. The participants were also given questionnaires:
|
The Right to Withdraw
It should be made clear to participants at the start of the investigation that they have the right to withdraw at any time. Informing participants of their right to withdraw usually forms part of the standardised instructions given to participants. The right to withdraw exists regardless of any payments made or offered; so participants should still be paid even if they withdraw if they have been offered payment as an incentive to take part. In children avoidance of the testing situation should be taken as evidence of failure to consent. The participant also has the right to withdraw retrospectively. This may happen as a result of the debriefing; in this case their data, including recordings should be destroyed.
| The right to withdraw in Zimbardo et al.’s Prison Experiment.
The right to withdraw was denied to one participant for a short time: “Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to fool us into releasing him.” “When our primary prison consultant interviewed Prisoner #8612, the consultant chided him for being so weak, and told him what kind of abuse he could expect from the guards and the prisoners if he were in San Quentin Prison. #8612 was then given the offer of becoming an informant in exchange for no further guard harassment. He was told to think it over.“. “During the next count, Prisoner #8612 told other prisoners, "You can't leave. You can't quit." That sent a chilling message and heightened their sense of really being imprisoned. #8612 then began to act "crazy," to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him.” From Zimbardo (1999) |
Protection of Participants
According to the BPS guidelines, investigators have a primary responsibility to protect participants from physical and mental harm. Any risk should be no greater than those encountered in their normal lifestyles. If risks are greater than this then the investigator should seek the disinterested approval of independent advisors, inform the participants AND obtain fully informed consent. 'Disinterested approval' means that the person giving approval does not have anything to gain from the research; for example, they will not benefit financially or professionally from it.
Participants should also be asked about any factors in the procedure which may create a risk, such as a pre-existing medical condition. They should also be informed of any special action that should be taken to avoid risk. Participants should also be informed of procedures for contacting the investigator should stress, potential harm, or related questions or concern arise despite any precautions taken. It is the investigators responsibility to detect and remove or correct these consequences. There should be no deception when the researcher is seeking information that could be regarded as private: “Where research involves behaviour or experiences that the participant may regard as… private… they should be protected from stress by all appropriate measures, including the assurance that answers to personal questions need not be given.” It should be noted when discussing protection of participants that all of the other guidelines are aimed at protecting the participants. The principles in this section, then, are in addition to the other guidelines.
Useful teaching resource: Quiet Rage: Stanford Prison Study - Archive footage from the original 1973 study reveals the effect of prison life on a group of normal healthy young male volunteers.
