Ethics - a happy-joy-joy Christmas lecture!

1. Ethics - a happy-joy-joy Christmas lecture!

2. Today´s programme Lecture • Ethics • An intro to some important interaction laws Exercise • Paper helicopter experiment (lost my Fitt´s law files  • Free experiment supervision/help Next – and last - week • Q&A session + exam discussion

3. Updates • Exam date stands – Bill Gates to blaim!

4. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The experiment was created to explain some of the horrors taking place during WW2 • Many war-criminals claimed they were ”just following orders” • Milligrams question was whether the Germans were just cold-hearted, or if what was happening was a group psychology phenomenon that could happen to anyone given the right conditions • Can everyone become a war criminal?

5. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The experiment aimed at getting an answer to the question: • “For how long will someone continue to give shocks to another person if they are told to do so, even if they thought they could be seriously hurt?” • i.e. will people do morally wrong things just because an authority figure tells them to?

6. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • Milligram created a ”shock generator” with 30 switches • Each switch induces electric shock, from 15-450 volts • Shock level was marked: • Moderate – 75-120 volts • Strong – 135 – 180 volts • ..... • Danger – Severe Shock – 375- 420 volts • XXX – 435 – 450 volts

7. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The shock generator was phony – it just produced sounds • In the text, 40 volunteer subjects were informed that their payment was for showing up – they could leave when they wanted • Next they met an experimenter – an actor posing as a distinguished professor – and another participant – a fake as well.

8. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The two ”participants” drew lots about who was to be the ”teacher” and the ”learner” in the ”memory and learning experiment” • The lottery was faked, and the real participant always ended up as the ”teacher” • The ”teacher” then observed the fake participant beingstrapped to a chair with electrodes attached • They were then seated in another room with the shock generator, unable to see the ”learner”

9. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The ”teacher” was then instructed to teach word-pairs to the ”learner”. • When the learner made a mistake, the ”teacher” was instructed to administer a shock, 15 volts stronger each time • The ”teacher” was given a small 45 volt shock to make it look like the shock generator was real

10. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The experimenter was in the same room as the ”teacher”. If the ”teacher” grew concerned, the experimenter would use predefined ”prods” to try and make the ”teacher” continue the experiment. • The experimenter started with mild prods, who then grew more severe and authoritarian each time the subject contacted the experimenter • If asked, the experimenter said he was responsible for any damages to the ”learner”,which gave many ”teachers” a sense of relief to continue

11. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The ”learner” was in radio contact with the ”teacher”. • After specific voltages, pre-recorded audio would play, which the ”teacher” could hear – for example: 75 volts: ”Ugh!!!” 180 volts: ”Ugh!!! I can´t stand the pain. Let me out of here!” 285 volts: Screaming 345 volts +: Silence

12. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • Prior to the experiment, experts thought maybe 1-3% of the ”teachers” would not stop giving shocks • It was believed you would need to be a psychopath to give lethal shocks to a stranger

13. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • The original result had all 40 subjects obeying up to 300 volt shocks • 25 of 40 continued up to the maximum level of 375 volts • Many participants showed signs of tension – 3 had uncontrollable seizures

14. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • So 65% never stopped giving shocks • Even after the ”learner” had grown completely silent • Why? It is believed that there is a strong innate behavior in people to do as they are told, especially from authority persons

15. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • Further studies showed that: • Women are about the same obedient as men • Distance to the victim affects the obedience • Distance to the person ordering you affects the obedience • The appearance of the authority person and his rank can increase or decrease the obedience

16. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • At the time of the experiment (1960s) Europe was recovering from WW2, and was looking for answers • By the stricter controls of today, the experiment would not have been allowed – for example because: • The participants were deceived about the purpose of the experiment • They were not made aware of the consequences • There was a risk that the participants would suffer short-term emotional stress (they thought they caused harm to another person • There was a risk that participants would suffer long-term emotional stress (they found they would harm someone just because someone told them to do) [independent study found no long-term effects]

17. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • Another problem of deception-based experiments is that people may stop agreeing to participate in experiments • Because it becomes known that researchers use deception even research that is harmless or aimed at helping the subjects could loose participants

18. The Stanley Milligram Experiment • So, as researchers we cannot do this – but the media can • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU&NR=1 • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoo-cU3Y&feature=related

19. Research ethics

20. Ethics • Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc. • Ethics is a fuzzy concept, dependent on human morality • Gives rise to lots of problems in research

21. Ethics • In the ideal world, when running experiments, we need to make various ethical considerations • In the real world, people will often try to make us run experiments that to not adhere to ethical guidelines • Money is usually involved, often private sector

22. Ethics Some general considerations: • As experimenters, we have psychological power and influence over participants - • Especially if we are wearing a white lab coat or otherwise place ourselves as figures of authority • Participants are psychologically vulnerable: They do not know the full ramifications of the experiments, and are psychologically in a weaker position thant the experimenters • Historically there has been a lot of problems with unethical experimentation (nazi Germany being an excellent example) – your reputation as a professionals is equally at stake

23. Ethical clearing • The ethical committee • Most research institutions have some sort of ethical clearing process that one must go through in order to get approval for experimentation on humans • These processes can be extensive and time-consuming • Most companies do not – they are mainly concerned about the risk of a participant suing them • Companies that by law adhere to state rules, e.g. medical companies, follow very strict ethical guidelines

24. Ethical clearing • Ethical clearing is typically required when research involves humans, animals, dangerous materials and radioactivity • The approval process can be ridiculously extensive • Clearing by ethical committee is in the interest of safety of the participants • And the institution (lawsuits)

26. Ethical guidelines: The Code of Conduct • The APA and British Psychological Society have defined very detailed guidelines about how experimenters should behave while running experiments, and what the rights of participants are. • We should follow these.

27. Ethical guidelines: The Code of Conduct • The Code of Conduct governs how professionals should operate in their work • The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to protect the people in our care – students, patients, participants etc. • The Code of Conduct and the ethical guidelines it contain however also cover how to treat our colleagues • Let´s take a look at what the code of conduct tells us ...

28. The code of conduct • First and foremost, the code of conduct barrs us from engaging in certain types of research: • ”For ethical reasons, some areas of human experience and behavior may be beyond the reach of experiment, observation or other form of psychological investigation.” • British Psychological Society (2000) • For example, exposing innocents to nucelar radiation is illegal to experiment with

29. The code of conduct • The guiding principle of the code of conduct is that the experiment should be considered from the perspective of the participants • How does the experiment affect them? • Are there any risks associated with participation? • Are the risks equal for all participants? (children vs. adults)

30. The code of conduct • It is expected that we as experimenters are aware of the risks associted with the experiment and inform our participants • There should be mutual respect and confidence between experimenter and participants • To ensure this, a number of factors need to be considered, e.g. • Consent • Deception • Debriefing • Confidentiality • Protection

31. Consent

32. Consent • We should always get permission by the participants to include them in the experiment. • Participants should be informed about the objectives of the study and all aspect of the research that could influence their willingness to participate • If participants have questions, they should be answered (sometime we need to deceive participants – more on this later)

33. Consent • Getting concent is important for several reasons • So participants cannot sue us (and the university/company) afterwards • Because researchers are in a position of authority – e.g. using students. This relationship can pressure participants to take part in experiments they find upsetting

34. Consent • When working with children or adults with impairments, the consent is given by the parents/wards (loco parentis) • If – for some reason – permission cannot be obtained from parents/teachers/similar, the Ethics Committee of the organization/company is used • Sometimes independent consultant in private sector

35. Consent • Payingparticipantsis tricky – it is often necessary to get participants, but can induce them to participate where they really do not want to • Especially in experiments which can involve harm, discomfort or similar problems

36. Consent form • Consent is given via a consent form • The consent form should contain: • Description of the experiment • Information about the participant • Rights of the participant • Signature and data of participant • Contact information to the experimenter

37. Freedom to withdraw • Rights of the participant: Freedom to withdraw • The consent form states that participants have the right to withdraw at any time • They should still be paid • The freedom to withdraw is tricky in observational and organisatorial settings, but we must still observe the right • A participant can withdraw retrospectively – after the experiment

39. Deception • Misleadingparticipantsis problematic because it leads to lawsuits – oh, and also it is unethical • Sometimes it is impossible to study psychological processes withoutwitholding information about the purpose of the study • For example, to avoid false feedback from participants • In these cases, it is important to: • Ensure no alternative to deception exists • Ensure participants get the information as early as possible • Consult about whether the deception is ethical

40. Deception • Witholding information from participants is wrong if the information is likely to cause them to: • Reject participating • Cause them unease once debriefed • Cause them to object about the experiment • Cause them harm • Etc. • To check, consult with individuals who share the characteristics of the participants + Ethics Committee (cover your bee-hind)

41. Debriefing

42. Debriefing • Following the experiment, the participants should be told what the experiment was all about • Discuss the experiment, its purpose, what will happen with the information gathered • Monitorthe participant to see if any unforeseen effects have occured • Participants should be brought back to their original state • If we have run an experiment that e.g. induces a negativemood, debriefing must return them to their original mood state

43. Debriefing • Confidentiality: Almost all countries have rules governing how we treat data collected from experiments involving humans • Information obtained about individuals is confidential unless otherwise agreed in advance • You will go to jail if you do not respect confidentiality!

44. Confidentiality • If anonymity cannot be guaranteed, it must be stated in the consent form and participants informed • In research, we do not publish information that can be identified back to a person • Only general stuff: ”3 of 10 did not like icecream” • A good way to avoid registering personal information is to use codes: • Participant 01, participant 02, etc. etc.

45. Protection of participants

46. Protection • Experimenters have a responsibility to protect participants from physical and mental harm during the experiment • The risk of harm should be no greater than in everyday life (APA guidelines) • A fuzzy statement, and it brings problems ... • Participants must be informed about factors that could create a risk • Typically warning about pre-existing medical conditions

47. Protection • Following an experiment, participants have a right to contact the experimenter (or experimenters organization) concerning any issues to do with their well-being • Procedures for contacting the investigator must be in the consent form

48. Protection • When disseminating results of an experiment, the confidentiality must be respected • Not doing this can lead to harm to the participants psychological well-being (and lawsuits)

49. Protection • When doing research, you may obtain information about participants which they are not aware • E.g. psychological or physical problems • You should inform participants if you have reason to believe their future well-being is endangered • Do not advice participants on these issues if you are not specifically trained to do so – refer to a professional • Accept the limitations of your expertise, mr. Hot-shot-researcher! (again with the authority figure)

50. IN SUMMARY • How far are you willing to go?