Google

A foundational moral principle in psychological research is that a study is only ethical if its potential benefits outweigh its risks. This ethical evaluation can be challenging, as the risks and benefits are often not directly comparable and may affect different groups; for instance, a study might pose significant risks to the research participants while offering substantial benefits primarily to the scientific community or society.

Weighing Risks Against Benefits

Debriefing is the ethical procedure of informing research participants about the true purpose and design of a study as soon as possible after their participation. During this process, researchers must reveal any deception used, correct any resulting misconceptions, and take proactive steps to minimize or reverse any harm or negative emotions induced during the experiment.

Debriefing

In general, psychological research that carries the potential to inflict harm that is more than minor, or that lasts for more than a short duration, is rarely considered to be ethically justified by its potential benefits.

Unjustifiable Research Harm

First published in $$1953$$ and periodically revised, the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct includes approximately $$150$$ specific ethical standards that psychologists and their students must follow. While much of the code addresses clinical practice, it is particularly relevant to psychological research because it provides detailed, enforceable guidance on issues where general moral principles might be interpreted differently. Standard $$8$$ (Research and Publication) establishes mandatory requirements for institutional approval, informed consent, the regulation of deception, debriefing, animal care, and scholarly integrity.

APA Ethics Code

Standard 8.09 governs the humane treatment of nonhuman animal subjects in psychological research. Psychologists must acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with all regulations and professional standards. Researchers must make reasonable efforts to minimize pain and discomfort, and may only subject animals to stress or pain when alternative procedures are unavailable and the study's value justifies it.

Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research

When evaluating the benefits of a study, researchers must consider positive outcomes for the research participants, the broader scientific community, and society at large. For student researchers, an additional recognized benefit is the educational value and practical knowledge gained about conducting scientific research, which contributes to their future academic and career success.

Beneficiaries of Psychological Research

It is ethically unacceptable to subject research participants to pain, fear, or embarrassment solely to satisfy a researcher's personal curiosity. Any research that poses such risks must be justified by substantial and legitimate scientific or societal benefits, rather than personal interest.

Unethical Research Motivations

When weighing risks against benefits in psychological research, investigators must consider the potential impacts on the participants themselves. Risks to participants may include a treatment failing to help or causing harm, a procedure resulting in physical or psychological distress, or a violation of their right to privacy. Conversely, potential benefits can encompass receiving a helpful treatment, learning about the field of psychology, experiencing the satisfaction of contributing to scientific knowledge, and receiving compensation such as money or course credit.

Risks and Benefits to Research Participants

In scientific research, risks and benefits extend beyond the individual participants to the scientific community and society at large. A primary risk to science is the waste of resources—time, money, and effort—on poorly designed or uninteresting studies that could have been spent on more productive research. For society, a significant risk is the misunderstanding or misapplication of research results, which can lead to widespread harmful consequences. A prime example of both harms is the flawed research mistakenly linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism, which wasted scientific resources on unnecessary follow-ups and led to decreased vaccination rates, endangering public health. Conversely, the overarching benefits of rigorous research to both science and society are the advancement of scientific knowledge and the overall contribution to societal welfare.

Risks and Benefits to Science and Society

Stanley Milgram’s classic obedience study highlights the profound difficulty of weighing research risks against benefits, as the severe psychological stress was borne by the participants, while the resulting scientific knowledge primarily benefited society. Participants experienced extreme tension, including trembling and seizures, because they were deceptively led to believe they were administering painful electric shocks to a confederate. The ongoing debate surrounding this study centers on whether the significant insights gained into destructive obedience—which help explain historical atrocities like the Holocaust—were truly worth the severe emotional harm inflicted on the participants. Notably, evaluating this ethical balance requires acknowledging that Milgram went to great lengths to debrief his participants, returning their mental states to normal and demonstrating that most found the research valuable and were glad to have participated.

Ethical Implications of the Milgram Experiment

Why can the ethical evaluation of weighing a study's risks against its benefits be particularly challenging for psychological researchers?

A psychological study can be considered ethically acceptable even when the research participants themselves bear most of the risks, as long as the potential benefits to the broader scientific community or society are judged to sufficiently outweigh those risks.

Learn Before

Related