Ethical Procedures And Guidelines Defining Psychological Research Essay, Research Paper

Ethical Procedures and Guidelines Defining Psychological Research

Psychological research is often a very controversial subject among experts.

Many people feel that there are many moral standards that are often not followed.

Others may believe that there is much harmful misinformation that can often be

harmful to subject and others. Still others believe that psychology is a lot of

theories without any reinforcing information. Whether any of these assumptions

may be true or not, there have been guidelines created which serve to silence

many critics of the science. These guidelines make research safe and structured,

which will protect the subjects from unnecessary harm.

As psychology advances, there is seen a need for more rules and

regulations for the ensurement of subject comfort. Hence, there are many more

rules now than even twenty years ago. These rules really encompass a few broad

but very important ideas. One of these ideas is protecting the dignity of the

subjects. Another important component of this code refers to consent. All of

these will be explained in greater detail below. Another gray area in

psychology lies in the deception of subjects. There are some basic rules

guiding how deceptions can be carried out. There is a large section of the code

that was made with regards to animal research. The last major section of the

ASA ethical guidelines has to do with giving credit where credit is due, and

information sources. All of these regulations make research safer for the

subjects and increase the effectively of psychological research.

In psychological research, protecting subjects dignity is very important.

Without willing subjects the research process would be brought to a halt. In

order to protect the subjects’ dignity, the lab experiments must be well

prepared, and ethically appropriate. Only subjects who are targeted should be

affected, and if a large number of people are to be affected, psychologists

should consult experts on that specific group. Psychologists are to be held

directly responsible for the ethics that are utilized during the experiment.

In addition to this psychologists are bound by the normal, governmental laws

concerning research. In addition to these regulations concerning the law and

standards, psychologists are required to inform subjects of the basic procedure

that they will be agreeing to. This flows into the idea of informed consent.

Informed consent means basically that the subject must be informed of

the basic procedure that they will be agreeing to. There should not be any

variations from the agreed upon plan. Whenever there is a doubt about whether

or not informed consent is necessary , an institution or expert in the area of

the subjects should be consulted. One complicating factor in this sector is

deception in research. In order to conduct certain experiments, it is helpful

to psychologists to deceive the participants, with respect to exactly which

experiment is being performed upon them. The rules concerning this are

effective, but (necessarily) rather vague. First of all, psychologists are

never supposed to use deception unless no other alternative of method for the

experiment at hand is available. The deception cannot be in a manner that would

affect the participants’ decision to participate. And any deception that takes

place should always be explained as soon as possible, after the experiment has

reached its conclusion.

In order to preserve subjects dignity, the information about the

experiment that the subjects have participated in should be made available to

the subjects as soon as possible. This includes, the exact nature of the

experiment, the results , and the conclusions of the experiment. This will

probably have been already agreed upon by the experimenter and the subject, but

just in case, the experimenters are required to honor all commitments made to

the subject. This improves the credibility of the whole science, as a whole.

When the subjects are not human, there are still rules governing the

treatment of such subjects. These pertain mostly to protecting the (relative)

comfort of these subjects during experimentation. Basically, when experimenting

upon animals, basic care procedures must be followed. When anesthetic or

euthanasical procedures are to be used, they must be carried out in a fashion

that will be both professional and comfortable to the subjects. Obviously, the

procedures that can be carried out upon animals are more drastic than those on

humans because there is no informed consent involved in the study of animals,

and the procedures can be justified because the results are purportedly supposed

to assist in the betterment of the human race.

The last area of ASA code lies in reporting information. The natural

plagiarism laws are, as always, in effect. This is in addition to many precise

scientific falsification laws. These state that a scientist may not falsify or

fabricate information, first of all. Also, if a psychologist discovers any

significant errors in the study after the fact, steps to correct these errors

must be taken immediately. Also, the psychologists must give credit when it is

necessary, and never neglect to leave any information out.

All of these regulations seem to be very logical, and it is well that

they should. They have been developed over hundreds of years throughout the

study of psychology. With respect to current times, these rules seem like they

are sufficient, but the book of code should never be closed. There will always

be a new situation where a new addendum is required to protect a subject, or to

assist in the research. As is the case with therapy, there will, without a

doubt, be court cases that will change the code of ethics. But the ASA codes

seem to be as proficient as any that are practical in this age. Some of these

regulations may inhibit the immediate results that can be gained, but without

them, there would be a definite lack of willing participants to volunteer. This

would essentially bring psychological research upon humans to a halt.