Category: Ethics

Can you keep a secret?

30/5/2015

The best IB Psychology lessons involve students in classroom experiments, and here is one of my favourite all time lessons.

I am lucky at the school I teach at, having a small classroom enables me to set up this fiendishly delightful experiment. Those of you whom are overly concerned with the ethics of experimentation may like to peruse another IB Psychology blog post around about now. This experiment involves deception, subjection to social influence and some more deception ... all in the name of science and learning.

This IB Psychology classroom experiment takes some forward planning. Firstly, you need one class where a single student is absent, and this absent student should be one you know has reasonable self-esteem and is reasonably well balanced (yeah, I know, good luck Mr Burton with your crazy lot!). Suggest to the class that that you have a great in-class experiment that all can do around social influence and conformity, but you will need the help of the whole class and to be successful, it will need the entire class to be able to keep it secret from our absent student. They always answer "Yes, of course Mr Burton, and of course we can keep a secret". Surprisingly enough, in all my years of running this, there has not yet been a case of loose lips sinking this particular ship.

I then run them through the scenario and this PowerPoint embedded below. Essentially this PowerPoint is a series of 10 Maths questions, and for each the actual answer is always 2.5 million. Students are instructed that they will need to provide an answer below 2.5 million for the odd numbered questions and above 2.5 million for each even numbered question, to see what effect this will have on the answers given by our naive test subject. Will social influence cause some degree of conformity?

To set up the 'twist' on the day of the experiment, I begin by handing out one of each of the 'male body odour' and 'female cyber bulling' questions to each student and ask them to complete their answers independently. Once complete we run through the Maths questions. Each student gives their answer aloud, sequentially and the order is determined so the test subject gives her answer near last. I make a great pretense of recording everyone's answer, but only actually record the answers of interest, that of our test subject.

Only now do we reveal the true purposes of the experiment to our test subject, and in one single nod to ethical considerations, ask her if it is okay to share her results with the class. Always mentioning that if we had performed this experiment with anyone else in the class, their results would be exactly the same and very likely subject to social influence as well. No one, as yet, has declined permission. The results are robust, odd answers are invariably below 2.5 million and even answers above this number.

In terms of the IB Psychology learning outcome in the Socio-cultural Level of Analysis: Discuss factors influencing conformity, this appears to be strong support for how social influence can influence conformity to a group norm ... or is it?!

Now I collect and analyse the results to the four questions above, superficially looking like a stereotypical male/female question, however, what I am really interested in is the numbers that precede each question: 5% or 90%. Why? Well we will soon revisit the IB Psychology - Cognitive Level of Analysis learning outcome: With reference to relevant research studies, to what extent is one cognitive process reliable (for example, reconstructive memory, perception/visual illusions, decision‑making/heuristics)? And look at heuristics, specifically the anchoring bias. Without fail, my students estimates to questions anchored by 90% are hugely higher than those estimates anchored by 5%.

Obviously, in terms of social influence, this begs the question: Was it social influence that was affecting the estimates given by our target participant, or was it just the anchoring bias influencing results? Was it a social process or was it cognitive process, and can the two really be separated?

This is powerful critical thinking, something the IB Psychology examiner is always looking for in the IB Psychology ERQs, and having set the lesson up this way, when we come to look at Sherif's autokinetic effect experiment (a classic in the study of conformity), it is easy to understand, apply and remember.

Lesson. Nailed.

Author: Derek Burton – Passionate about IB Psychology

You look like a drowned rat

19/2/2014

Comments

Ethics shouldn't make you depressed.

Picture this. You are a mad scientist. You place a large number of rats into individual containers filled with water, get out the stop watch and time how long it takes them to succumb to the inevitable – death by drowning. And, as if this isn’t mad enough already, half of these rats you then rescue from their watery grave. You take them out, towel them off, give them a bit of a blow dry, reassure them that it was all just a terrible mistake, and give them some food, a blanket to warm themselves and a teddy bear to cuddle as they try to overcome their ordeal. Then, (ha ha!) you place them back into their watery containers and time how long it takes them to drown this time. For real. Didn’t I tell you that you were a mad scientist? [For the impatient among you, skip to the end for the fascinating AND repellant results.]

A bizarre study has just landed on my desk. In the IB Psychology Diploma course we examine in detail the ethics of research studies in the learning outcome: Discuss ethical considerations related to research studies at the cognitive level of analysis (also at the biological and socio-cultural levels of analysis). And those choosing the Abnormal Psychology option (and that’s most of you out there) will probably look at major depression as an affective disorder, and explore the learning outcome: Analyse etiologies of one disorder. This study by Richter (1957) can be applied to both learning outcomes in IB Psychology.

Firstly, there are (now) clear guidelines in the American Psychological Association (APA) manual into the ethical treatment of animals when used in research studies. Guidelines which were obviously lacking in 1957. The following ethical guidelines have now been formulated:

Animal research should try to avoid harm to animals. Any harm caused to animal should be carefully weighed against the research’s potential to provide significant benefit to the health or welfare of humans or other animals, or if it is unavoidable (e.g., electrodes that monitor individual neuronal hippocampal activity in memory tasks). If the procedure would cause pain to humans, it should be assumed that it will cause pain to animals. Animal welfare should be monitored and animals should be euthanised as soon as possible if research causes long term/serious harm and/or affects their ability to live normally and pain-free.

Now while the results of Richter the mad rat torturer are astonishing (yes, we’ll come to these in a minute), there is no way they could have been predicted ahead of time. No hypothesis was formed, it was just a see what happens ‘study’ which, incidentally, came to provide great insight into some factors that can lead to depression. Thus, it fails the “…research’s potential to provide significant benefit …” test. In fact, what Richter was really interested in was the sudden deaths associated with Voodoo cultures when a victim had been cursed – a tenuous connection to drowning rats at best. It also begs the question as to what else he was doing to animals that was not making it into the scientific literature (rescuing them from the mouths of feral cats before feeding them to rabid dogs?).

Further: “If the procedure would cause pain to humans, it should be assumed that it will cause pain to animals (APA).” Super stressed animals suffering a protracted death cannot possibly be justified here. Poor rats. Trust your gut instincts. If this was not your initial reaction then consider taking this test.

Unethical? Definitely. So what insight does the research provide us into the etiologies of major depression? Now, we need to look at those results.

Foolish rats! Haven't you heard of Dr Curt Richter?

The average length of time at which rats stopped swimming and drowned in the ‘helplessness’ condition was short. Rats in this condition ceased swimming and drowned within minutes – they just gave up, submitting to what they believed was inevitable.

The rescued rats swam for hours. Up to sixty hours of swimming, paddling and treading water was recorded in this dastardly study. Rescue a rat, provide them with some hope and they will fight and try and hang on in there until they have exhausted their physical and mental limits.

Warning! Contains graphic content

A cause of depression linked suicide is the phenomenon of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness is all about feeling trapped in an insoluble situation. A depressed person can believe that his or her situation is impossible to escape. Through experience, people can think, feel and behave as if their situation is helpless, when it is not. Repeated exposure to these negative thoughts, feelings and behaviours can lead to depressive thoughts, and eventually … well, we know how some people eventually believe they can find some control in their lives. Control over how they can ultimately escape the situation.

If you cannot find your own way out. You will need to reach out and find that helping hand. Let’s just hope that that hand doesn’t belong to a mad scientist.

Original study: Richter (1957)

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

Perfection

17/2/2014

Comments

Ever wondered what the perfect answer to an Extended Response Question looks like?

The Extended Response Questions (ERQs) in IB Psychology are the all important 22 mark essay questions in the Paper 1 and Paper 2 examinations, at both Higher and Standard Levels (HL and SL). The IB Psychology student has to master the preparation for these questions in order to achieve any level of success in their exams.

There are no surprises in the IB Psychology exams. You know exactly which ERQs could be asked, they are given to you in the learning outcomes for the course. And, as such, you need to prepare answers to each of these questions.

A headache brought on by a tricky ERQ

What a 22 marks out of 22 marks ERQ answer looks like ...

DISCUSS ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO RESEARCH STUDIES AT THE BIOLOGICAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS.

This essay will offer a balanced review of ethical considerations related to research studies at the biological level of analysis (BLOA). The BLOA is based on mental processes such as perception, attention, language, memory, and thinking. The essay will then apply these ethical considerations to two specific research studies at the BLOA where ethical concerns have been raised – Schachter & Singer (1962) and the Case study of HM (Curtis, 1981).

Ethics is the moral correctness of a specified conduct – in this case, the moral correctness of animal and human research at the CLOA. In cognitive psychology research, ethics must be considered to ensure participants (humans and animals) are not harmed and that research conducted is ethically valid. Researchers should always conduct research in an ethical manner and studies should always be critically evaluated for ethical issues.

Ethical standards formulated by the American Psychology Association (APA, a scientific and professional organisation that represents psychologists) states that all research done in psychology, including that at the BLOA, must abide by six specific ethical guidelines, these include:

1. The protection of participants - Participants should be protected from physical and mental harm and distress (humiliation, stress, injury, etc.) and that participants should not be forced to reveal personal information.

2. Consent - Participants should be informed of the true aims and nature of research before giving consent. However, sometimes it is not possible to give full information about research. This is especially true if participant bias could be expected; i.e., knowing the true aims of a study may affect participants’ behaviour and thus the results of a study. For example, knowing beforehand that a study is researching how an emotion (e.g., anger) is related to physiology (e.g., adrenaline – a neurotransmitter and hormone) could lead to participants responding more cautiously and thoughtfully to the experimental conditions than they otherwise would (Schachter & Singer, 1962). It is also considered acceptable not to give full informed consent if no harm is expected (e.g., using MRI scans to examine changes in the structure of the hippocampus of London taxi drivers as a result of intense learning – Maguire et al., 2000).

A guardian or family member should also give consent to the study if the participants are children (under the age of 18) or unable to give consent (e.g., a participant severely affected by Alzheimer’s disease).

3. Right to withdraw - Participants should be informed of their right to withdraw their participation and data at any time in the study (even at the end) without penalty. This is important because individual differences means that researchers can never be certain if a particular participant will be experiencing stress and discomfort or not.

4. Confidentiality - Data collected in a study should remain confidential and anonymous because it is important to protect participants from possible consequences that may result from their data (e.g., some health insurance companies insist that any cognitive degenerative disease diagnosis such as AD be made available to them). Identifying information and individual responses will not be shared with anyone who is not involved in the study.

5. Deception should be avoided, however slight deception is considered acceptable if:

Participant bias would result from participants knowing the true aims of the study
The research has potential significant contribution
It is unavoidable
The deception does not cause any distress to the participant, including upon being informed of the deception.

6.  Debriefing - Any deception must be revealed and justified and participants should leave the study without undue stress. Findings of the research should be made available to participants as soon as possible.

Ethical guidelines for animal research (APA) have also been formulated:

Animal research should try to avoid harm to animals. Any harm caused to animal should be carefully weighed against the research’s potential to provide significant benefit to the health or welfare of humans or other animals, or if it is unavoidable (e.g., electrodes that monitor individual neuronal hippocampal activity in memory tasks). If the procedure would cause pain to humans, it should be assumed that it will cause pain to animals. Animal welfare should be monitored and animals should be euthanised as soon as possible if research causes long term/serious harm and/or affects their ability to live normally and pain-free.

Research studies such as Curtis (1981) and Schachter and Singer (1962) raise significant ethical considerations.

The case study of HM (Curtis, 1981)
HM was man who lost the ability to remember information after a brain operation. The operation was clearly a disaster for HM, although he probably never understood that because he could never learn what happened to him or if he did he would forget it within a couple of minutes. This was a tragedy for HM but an opportunity for any psychologists who became aware of the case. They queued up to study HM’s memory, assessing it with all kinds of tests and checking out a wide range of hypotheses concerning the theoretical distinctions between long-term and short-term memory, and between explicit and implicit memory. They used all sorts of stimuli, including electric shocks and white noise (see review: Corkin, 1984). He has probably had more words written about him than any other case in neurological or psychological history (Ogden & Corkin, 1991).

There were a set of ethical issues with most of the studies performed on HM, which include:

1. Participant Protection – HM was protected from harm during most studies, but obviously not when electric shocks were used. He may have experienced mental distress from dramatic changes in environments, carers and different researchers coming and going.

2.  Consent – HM could not be fully informed or give consent to these studies due to his general cognitive functioning. He would not understand the nature and aims of the study and therefore, it was not possible to gain fully informed consent.
3.     Withdrawal – HM would not have been able to express any desires to withdraw from the studies as it was likely, his poor memory would mean that he was not aware that he was participating in an experiment after a short period of time had passed.
4.  Confidentiality – His identity was kept anonymous as best as possible as 'HM' is just his initials. His real name was in the end revealed, and his case was exposed to the world of psychology and HM was readily identifiable in video footage.
5.  Deception and debriefing – HM was not debriefed in most studies study. However, as he did not know that he was being studied, he would not desire a debriefing.

In conclusion, most of the memory studies in which HM participated would not meet the ethical requirements necessary for research into the BLOA and would not be approved by the ethics boards of universities today. The ethical procedures surrounding case study patients today are much more prescribed and regulated.

Schachter and Singer (1962)
Schachter and Singer aimed to test whether cognition (the interpretation of a state of arousal) was needed to interpret and transform ambiguous physiological states into specific emotions. To do this they recruited volunteers to receive a vitamin injection and informed them that they would be participating in vision experiments. None of the participants received a vitamin injection. Three of the four experimental groups received an adrenalin injection (a potent hormone associated with fight or flight response), and the control group a saline injection. In addition to this deception, one of the experimental groups was provided with misinformation about the side effects of the ‘vitamin’ injection (the actual side effects of adrenaline). The next experimental condition saw half of the participants being manipulated into an emotional state of anger (the half into a state of ‘euphoria’ or happiness).

There were a set of ethical issues in this study, which include:

Deception – Participants were deceived about the aims and nature of the study. Participants were told the study aimed to test the effects of the supposed vitamin injection on vision. But it was actually testing the two factor theory of emotion - emotion arises from a combination of cognition and arousal - using adrenaline. All participants were deceived about the injection they were receiving, and were actually administered adrenaline or a placebo (saline solution). Furthermore, some participants were given false side effects of the adrenaline injection that they were given – headache, numbness, itchiness in the feet

However, deception was used because participant bias would result from participants knowing the true nature of the study and the research has potential significant contribution to understanding the causes of emotion.

Consent – Participants were not informed of the true nature and aims of the study before giving consent. They did not know that the study aimed to investigate the two factor theory of emotion. They did not know that they would be receiving adrenaline or placebo injections. Some participants did not know the true effects of the adrenaline injection they were given, they were either given false effects or no effects.

Again, however, being fully informed of the true nature and aims of the study probably would have resulted in participant bias.

Participant protection – Researchers did not protect participants. Participants may have had a harmful reaction to the adrenaline and researchers did not ensure that participants would not experience harm from the injection.

Debriefing – Participants were adequately debriefed and the deception was revealed and justified.

In conclusion, this study does not meet the ethical requirements necessary for research into the BLOA and would not be approved by the ethics boards of universities today. The of the use of a potent hormone adrenaline being administered while simultaneously attempting to induce anger in the participants raises ethical concerns about the protection of participants, as does the significant levels of deception involved. These factors are not likely to be outweighed by the significance of research argument.

General conclusion:
Most modern day research into the BLOA is seriously considered in terms of its ethics by both the researchers themselves and by governing oversight by the governors of ethics boards. If deception is to be involved it is required to be slight and protection of participants paramount. We have seen that some previous research into the BLOA has not always met the requirements of the ethical guidelines now required in this field.

Author: Derek Burton - Passionate about IB Psychology

Comments

Can you keep a secret?

You look like a drowned rat

Perfection

IB DipLOMA PsychologY:

Archives

Categories

Can you keep a secret?

You look like a drowned rat

Perfection

IB DipLOMA Psycho﻿logY:

Archives

Categories

IB DipLOMA PsychologY: