Abnormal Psychology. William J. Ray

have outside the experimental situation. One major one is the right to privacy. Most of us at first think of the right to privacy as the right to spend time by oneself or with others of one’s choosing, without being disturbed. This is the external manifestation of the right to privacy. But there is also an internal or intrapersonal manifestation of this right (Raebhausen & Brim, 1967). This is the right to have private thoughts or, as it is sometimes called, a private personality. This means that the thoughts and feelings of a participant should not be made public without the participant’s consent. It also means that a conversation between a participant and a scientist should be considered a private event, not a public one. This is an important consideration when studying those with mental disorders, as private events are often the focus of the research.

      right to privacy: in an experiment, this means that information given by a participant to a scientist should be considered a private event, not a public one

      private personality: the private thoughts of a person

      Given the research participant’s right to privacy and a private personality, you may wonder how the scientist can ever report his or her findings. There are two considerations that are part of the scientist’s responsibility to the participant: confidentiality and anonymity.

      The principle of confidentiality requires that the scientist not release data of a personal nature to other scientists or groups without the participant’s consent. Even during the experiment, researchers keep any personal data in a secure location and often destroy personal information once the experiment is completed.

      confidentiality: a principle that requires that the scientist not release data of a personal nature to other scientists or groups without the participant’s consent

      anonymity: a principle that requires that the personal identity of a given participant in a research study be kept separate from his or her data

      The principle of anonymity requires that the personal identity of a given participant be kept separate from his or her data. The easiest way to accomplish this is to avoid requesting names in the first place; however, there are times when this may be impossible. Another alternative is to use code numbers that protect the identities of the participants and to destroy the list of participants’ names once the data analysis has been completed.

      What Is Harmful to a Research Participant?

      As stated earlier, it is the right of a research participant not to be harmed. In most psychological research, physical pain and harm present no problems, either because they are absent completely or because the participant is fully informed of the particular procedure that will be used, such as making a loud noise or placing the participant’s hand in cold water to measure physiological responsiveness.

      However, the question of psychological harm presents a much larger issue—one that will continue to be debated for years to come. This may be especially true when working with those with a psychopathology. Is it harmful to show participants something true but negative about themselves? Is it harmful to create situations in which participants feel negative emotions such as fear or anger? Is it harmful to make participants feel like failures in order to determine how this affects their performance? These are the types of questions that are being debated currently.

      As a scientist, where do you go for help? There are two major sources: the APA’s guidelines on ethics and the institutional review board, also known as the human subjects committee or office of research compliance, at the institution where you study or work. In addition, many specialty organizations have adopted guidelines for specific populations. For example, the Society for Research in Child Development has established ethical standards for research with children.

      institutional review board (IRB): a committee to determine whether the participants in a proposed research study are adequately protected in terms of both welfare and rights, and to determine when a risk is unreasonable

      The Institutional Review Board

      The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requires that each scientist whose institution receives federal funds must seek a review of the ethical considerations of research with human participants, whether or not there is a deviation from the APA guidelines. Known as an institutional review board (IRB), this type of review committee is required to judge the appropriateness not only of proposed psychological research, but also of any type of research with human participants. The committee that reviews the research is to be made up of people who work at the same university, hospital, school, or other institution as the scientist and to also include members of the community where the institution is located.

      Institutional review boards review the ethical considerations of research with human participants.

      © iStockphoto.com/kali9

      The main task of the IRB is to determine whether the participants are adequately protected in terms of both welfare and rights. One major question that the committee asks is the following: Are there any risks—physical, psychological, or social—associated with participating in a given piece of research? Almost everything we do each day involves varying degrees of risk, so the committee attempts to determine when a risk is unreasonable.

      The committee also considers the potential long-term effects of a particular treatment on a person. For example, asking a participant to run a mile, to give a small sample of blood, to have his or her heart rate measured, or to discuss his or her sexual preference or childhood involves some risks in the way the term is used by most internal review committees. However, the IRB may decide that, in light of the information that would be gained, these risks are not sufficient to prevent the study from being performed. Thus, a second major question that a review committee asks is the following: Are the risks to the participants outweighed by the potential benefits to them or by the estimated importance to society of the knowledge to be gained? If the committee determines that the answer to this question is yes, a third question is asked: Has the experimenter allowed the prospective participants to determine freely whether they will participate in the experiment? Finally, the committee asks the following: Will the experimenter obtain the participants’ informed consent?

      The Ethical Relationship

      As we conclude these considerations, let’s remind ourselves that ethical questions have at their base issues of relationships and traditions. As scientists, we ask what is and what ought to be our relationship with our participants and our society with regard to research. To answer these questions, we stress that part of our ethical responsibility is to consult with others about our research. In this context, we described the manner in which internal review committees evaluate the ethics of research and the guidelines (e.g., those of the APA and the federal government) used to direct our evaluations. With both humans and animals, we are only beginning to develop methods for the study of inner experience that can help to inform our ethical considerations.

      Concept Check

       “Ethical considerations of psychological experimentation have at their heart the idea that people participating in research should not be harmed.” What four questions does every scientist need to consider in designing a research study?

       Which four sources of ethical and legal guidelines help the scientist in designing and conducting psychopathology research?

       What are “voluntary participation” and “informed consent” in the context of scientific research? What are some of the specific issues they raise in terms of psychopathology research?

       How do “confidentiality” and “anonymity” figure into the experimenter’s responsibility to protect the research participant’s right to privacy?

       What are the questions an IRB asks in regard to the