Bias and Ethics in Research

1. Bias and Ethics in Research Obtaining legitimate results without harming participants

2. What is Bias? • Bias refers to nonrandom effects caused by some factors unrelated to the research hypothesis.

3. Hindsight Bias • Hindsight Bias is the “I-knew-it-all-along” phenomenon. • After learning the outcome of an event, many people believe they could have predicted that very outcome. After the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident, someone said they knew Chris Brown was a violent guy when they first saw him. Did they really?

4. Personal/Experimenter Bias • The researcher allowing personal beliefs to affect the outcome of a study • Often not a conscious act • Can be avoided by using a double-blind format

5. Subject Expectancy • Suppose you went to the doctor with a stress-induced headache. Concerned about giving you unnecessary drugs, the doctor instead gives you a sugar pill but tells you that the pill is a strong pain reliever. • An hour later, your headache is gone. Since you had the expectation that your headache would be gone, it went away, even without the benefit of medicine. This is called a subject-expectancyeffect and the sugar pill is called a placebo. • In experiments, subject expectancy effects can be controlled by using double-blind procedures. This simply means that both the person administering the procedure (e.g., the experimenter) and the participant/subject in the procedure (e.g., the patient) are kept unaware of (blind to) the condition to which the participant is being assigned.

6. The “Hawthorne Effect” • In the mid-1920’s, the Hawthorne Works (an Electric Company plant in Chicago) was involved in a series of experiments to test whether lighting conditions contributed to higher/lower levels of work and efficiency in employees. • Workers in 3 different departments were observed under different levels of illumination. • They believed that increased levels of illumination would mean more work output, and lower levels would mean less work output.

7. The Results? • In both the experimental and control conditions, performance increased, and it seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with the lighting whatsoever. • They soon realized that it was simply the subjects’ knowledge that they were being observed at all that affected their performance. They knew they were under a type of special scrutiny, even if they didn’t know what it was about. • Subject expectation and effort can lead to changes in results, and may compromise a researcher’s ability to attribute the change to the IV.

8. Observer Expectancy Effects: Clever Hans • Around the turn of the 20th century in Germany, Wilhelm von Osten owned a horse that appeared to rival humans in its intelligence. • Hans could perform mathematical calculations (counting, adding, multiplication and division – including decimals and fractions), and used a system that mapped numbers to letters in order to spell and read. • The horse even passed the scrutiny of a special panel (made up of scientists and animal trainers) that was convened to test the authenticity of his feats.

9. A horse is a horse, of course, of course… • A man named Oskar Pfungst wasn’t buying it, however. He suspected that the horse might be responding to subtle clues from the questioner/experimenter. • To test this possibility, he compared Hans’ ability • When the questioner knew the problem and the answer • When the questioner did not see the problem and did not know the answer • In the former case, Hans was correct 98% of the time. In the latter case, only 8%.

10. What do we learn from Hans? • Hans was responding to subtle visual cues given by the questioner – his facial expression and body posture cued Hans when to start and stop his hoof-tapping. • Hans demonstrates the necessity of a blind experimental design, and the importance of a good scientific theory. The theory that Hans was reading, writing, and performing math failed as a good theory, as it didn’t fit known facts. Pfungst attempted to develop a better theory, and in the process, he revealed the dangers of observer bias.

11. Observer-Expectancy Cont. • Observer-expectancy effects (also called experimenter expectancy) - when observations are not made in controlled conditions, the observers can sometimes affect the phenomena under observation. • People observing Hans expected him to get the answers correct and (knowingly or unknowingly) communicated to him how to answer questions correctly. Experiments attempt to control for observer-expectancy effects. • So how can we avoid such biases if they are unintentional? We can do this by keeping the observer blind. This means that the observer does not know about the research hypothesis and therefore has no expectations to communicate.

13. Life Before Ethical Guidelines • Prior to the Nuremberg Code (post-WWII) and the APA Code of Ethics (1953), many freedoms in how research could be conducted existed. The Carney Landis study is an example of such research.

14. How Far is Too Far? • Landis wanted to study the facial expressions that accompany strong emotion. In order to do so he had to induce strong emotions in his subjects. • To get an expression of fear, for example, he put the subject’s hand, sight unseen, into a bucket of water in which there were three frogs. When the hand had been in long enough for the subject to detect that there was something active in the bucket, he applied a strong electric shock to the hand. • Worst of all, to create the emotion of revulsion, he handed the subject a live rat and a dull table knife and ordered the subject to decapitate the rat. If the subject refused, he would do it, while the subject was required to watch. • Describe some ethical violations you believe exist in the above text. • Do you find any aspect of Landis’ procedure acceptable?

15. APA Ethical Guidelines • Psychologists are responsible for the ethical conduct of research conducted by them or by others under their supervision. • Psychologists conduct research with due concern for the dignity and welfare of the participants. • Psychologists inform participants that they are free to participate or to decline to participate or to withdraw from the research at any time. • Psychologists inform participants of significant factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate. • Psychologists must obtain informed consent from research participants prior to filming or recording them.

16. APA Ethical Guidelines (cont.) • Participants should be fully debriefed following any deception. • Psychologists inform research participants of their anticipated sharing or further use of personally identifiable research data. • Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research. • Psychologists must honor all commitments made to research participants. • The APA also presents additional guidelines for the use and care of animals in research.

17. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Guidelines • Research proposals submitted to an IRB must be accurate. • Informed consent shall fully inform participants of the nature and requirements for participation. • Informed consent shall fully inform participants of the parameters of the study. • Special steps must be taken to protect research participants in a subordinate position. • Informed consent may be waived under certain circumstances. • Excessive inducements for participation are to be avoided. • Deception is allowed if no other alternative is available. • Participants must be given timely feedback about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research.

18. Stanley Milgram and Stanford Prison Experiments • What are the ethical concerns of the Milgram and Zimbardo studies?

19. Ethics in Animal Research • The APA also has established ethical guidelines for the use of animals in psychological studies. See the following links for more information: • http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/guidelines.aspx?item=1 • http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/research-animals.pdf