JoVE Educazione Scientific
Experimental Psychology
È necessario avere un abbonamento a JoVE per visualizzare questo.  Accedi o inizia la tua prova gratuita.
JoVE Educazione Scientific Experimental Psychology
Ethics in Psychology Research
  • 00:00Panoramica
  • 00:59Experimental Design
  • 02:43Running the Experiment
  • 05:01Representative Results
  • 05:33Applications
  • 06:55Summary

心理学研究における倫理

English

Condividere

Panoramica

ソース: ゲイリー Lewandowski デイブ Strohmetz ナタリー Ciarocco 所-マンモス大学

研究者は、侵略などを勉強する興味深いトピックを見つけると、目標は可能な限りの生活に真の方法でそれを研究する多くの場合です。しかし、研究者は、倫理的な方法で行動しなければなりません。 これを行うには、参加者の最善の利益との研究の目標のバランスを取る必要があります彼ら。倫理よく入る計画プロセス研究者識別すべての方法彼らはまたは操作できますが、変数を測定、操作または変数を測定する必要がある方法に基づいて彼らの最終的な決定を行います。

テストまたは用紙に悪い等級を受け取った後大学生に八つ当たりする表示可能性があります (すなわち、に向けて積極的な方法で法) あるいは意地悪な叫んで、投げること、または物理的に暴力になるであることによって彼らのルームメイト。侵略は、勉強し、それが対人暴力の影響により理解する重要な行動です。ただし、安全上の理由から、研究は深刻な種類の暴力によって生じるリスクに参加者を公開できません。その結果、類似を特定する必要がありますが、私たちを助けることができる良性の行動が害を与える参加者の有無より積極的な行動を理解します。

このビデオは、人々 は、他は元の問題に責任がないにもかかわらず、他人に怒りは本当に取るかどうかに 2 つのグループの実験を使用します。具体的には、負のフィードバックが参加者、利点、インフォームド コンセント、対コストに害など重要な倫理的な問題を考慮し、報告しながら侵略につながるかどうかを調査します。

心理学的研究は、しばしば他の科学研究よりも高いサンプル サイズを使用します。多数の参加者より検討中の人口がよりよく表されることを確保すること、すなわち、人間の行動を研究することによって伴うエラーのマージンは十分に占めております。このビデオではちょうど 2 つの参加者は、1 つは、エバリュエーターを使用してこの実験を紹介します。ただし、な結果で表される実験の結論に到達するのに 245 の参加者合計を使用しました。

Procedura

1. 研究で倫理的な行動を定義します。 倫理、道徳的基準と我々 の決定を導く原則のコレクションです。彼らはまた、我々 が何をすべきを本質的に教えてください。研究者は何ができるか、何をすべきと異なります。 費用-便益分析: 調査する必要があることを確認する必要があります研究者を知っている利点を上回るコストまたは害のリスク。 これは、参加者の利点の増加?…

Risultati

The data were collected from 245 participants. Recall that the aggression scale was calculated on the number assigned to each of the drinks, which varied in levels of distasteful flavor. A t-test for independent means was run to compare the negative and neutral feedback conditions to determine how they influenced aggression. The results indicated that participants who received the negative feedback generally chose more noxious drinks for the innocent person in the other room (the friend of the evaluator), which is an indication of aggression (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Amount of aggression by feedback condition.

Applications and Summary

This two-group experiment shows how researchers can study sensitive topics in an ethical way that minimizes harm to participants, while still allowing participants to engage in an aggressive behavior.

As they study human behavior, psychologists often seek to analyze undesirable and troubling behavior. For example a recent study in Psychology of Popular Media Culture found that when video-game players lost a game, they were more likely to act aggressively by trash-talking.1 Though aggressive, this behavior is less risky than physical aggression and is common, which shows the researchers considered the ethical implications of their research.

Ethics apply beyond research. When considering ethical dilemmas in everyday life, there often is not a clear right or wrong answer. Should we test cosmetics on animals? Should Facebook be allowed to change how information appears on a user’s page to see if it changes the user’s behavior? The issues are complicated, but it is imperative that researchers consider these issues and seek out ways to answer their research questions in ways that protect participants.

Riferimenti

  1. Harmon-Jones, E., & Sigelman, J. State anger and prefrontal brain activity: Evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 797-803 (2001).
  2. Breuer, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. Sore losers? A reexamination of the frustration–aggression hypothesis for collocated video game play. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. (2013).

Trascrizione

Sensitive topics in research require careful planning to uphold ethical behavior- the moral standards that guide decision-making.

Designing studies in an ethical manner requires a balancing act between the benefits of the research and the costs or risk of harm to participants.

This decision process is referred to as a cost-benefit analysis, in which the study’s intent outweighs the high costs or risks of harm for those involved.

By applying ethical principles, this video demonstrates how to design, perform, analyze, and interpret an experiment about interpersonal aggression. Importantly, researchers study anger towards others without resorting to physical harm by incorporating more benign forms of aggressive behavior.

For this experiment, consider two sensitive topics, negative feedback and aggression, that require cost-benefit analyses to demonstrate ethical compliance.

Negative feedback towards participants might entail a number of different forms, including: medical results that indicate disease, a diagnostic test that indicates low IQ, harsh commentary on physical appearance, or severe criticism on written work.

Aggression could involve a number of behaviors, such as being verbally abusive to the participant, physically pushing the participant, administering an electrical shock to the participant, or giving the participant a foul-tasting drink.

Here, the experiment will focus on providing severe criticism on participant’s written work.

Using a two-group design, all participants write a paragraph about a day at the beach. One group receives negative feedback in the form of negative comments, whereas the second group receives neutral feedback, or no comments.

After receiving criticism, participants are asked to choose a beverage for their paragraph evaluator’s friend. The beverage choice correlates to the level of aggression displayed by the participant.

The hypothesis of the experiment is negative feedback induces aggression that would be taken out on another individual.

Thus, those who receive negative comments are expected to retaliate and choose more distasteful drink choices than those who receive no comments.

To conduct the experiment, gather the informed consent and final debriefing papers, a black pen, and a blank piece of paper. In a different room, you will need: dice, a red pen, index cards, 5 cups of water, a tray or platter, and portions of sugar, lemon juice, vinegar, and hot sauce.

To begin the experiment, meet the participant in the lab. Guide all participants through the consent process and discuss the overall plan for the session.

With the participant sitting at a desk, ask them to write a brief paragraph that describes a day at the beach. After the participant finishes, inform them that another researcher will evaluate the paragraph over the next 5 min.

Once in another room, roll dice to randomly determine the kind of feedback the participant receives. Assign negative feedback for an even number, and write comments on the paragraph with a red pen. If the dice roll results in an odd number, assign neutral feedback, and do not make any marks on the page.

After providing feedback, return the paragraph to the participant. Suggest that they read over the comments when you leave the room to set-up the next phase of the experiment.

While the participant waits, prepare five different beverages that range from pleasant to unpleasant tastes: highly sugared water, lemon water, plain water, vinegar in water, and hot sauce in water.

Then, label five different index cards with a number on one side and description on the other. Arrange each pair on a platter.

After arranging the platter, carry it into the room with the participant. Explain what each beverage contains. Instruct them to choose one beverage for the evaluator’s friend to drink in the other room. Record the number associated with the chosen beverage.

At the conclusion of the experiment, debrief participants and explain why deception was necessary for the experiment.

To analyze how aggressive behavior is expressed after feedback, average the numbers recorded for the chosen beverages in each condition.

The data are then graphed by plotting the mean number in each condition. In this experiment, participants who received negative feedback retaliated and chose a more distasteful beverage for the evaluator’s friend than those in the neutral group who did not receive any feedback.

Now that you are familiar with how psychologists study sensitive topics in an ethical way, let’s take a look at how other researchers are mindful of moral standards that promote safe alternatives for studying troubling and undesirable behaviors.

A recent study found that when video game players lost a game, they were more likely to act aggressively by “trash-talking.” The researcher considered the ethical implications of the design because trash-talking is less risky than physical aggression.

This study uses a social test that reliably induces a stress response in participants.

Physiological measures, such as skin conductance, heart rate and stress hormone levels, are obtained non-invasively through simple monitoring equipment and saliva samples.

Thus, this experiment provides an ethical alternative to painful physical stressors like treadmill running or cold pressor test.

Facing numerous ethical concerns, animal researchers use: within-group designs to reduce the number of unnecessary subjects, behavioral tasks to obtain ethological responses, and administer pharmaceutical agents to minimize pain and suffering.

You’ve just watched JoVE’s introduction to Ethics in Psychological Research. Now you should have a good understanding of how to design and perform the experiment, as well as analyze results and apply the phenomenon.

Thanks for watching! 

Tags

Cite This
JoVE Science Education Database. Education. Ethics in Psychology Research. JoVE, Cambridge, MA, (2023).