Ethical Issues and Power Dynamics in Cognitive Psychology Research

Hello and welcome to the course basics of experimental design for cognitive psychology. I am Arkwarma from the

department of cognitive science at ID Kpur. We are in week four and today is the last lecture where where I'm

continuing to talk about the issues uh ethical issues of conducting research. Now uh this third thing that was pointed

out by Diner and Crannle continuing from the last lecture was this idea of the awareness of the power differentials

between uh the experimental and the participant. Remember when we were talking about the freedom of choice

aspect we said that a lot of times it is not really choice that is available to the participant. Say for example if an

instructor is conducting the experiment or if uh an in uh or if an experimental is uh you know uh providing some

monetary compensation or uh some kind of awards or something uh you know to the participant and the participant needs it

there is uh you know lack of choice. If the participant needs that if the participant needs that money and the

parts needs that course credit then there is lack of choice. Now where does this come from? One of the even

underlying issues is that there is a power differential between the experimental and the participant. You

would also like to uh you know remember uh Mgram's study when we were talking about the study on obedience or uh you

know uh the effects of uh you know obedience to authority uh even though the participants were uh you know facing

a lot of psychological distress facing a lot of psychological discomfort uh a lot of them did eventually obey the

experimental and delivered uh you know electric shocks to the co-articipants. It was in some sense that people just

obeyed that authority and that also in one sense is a testimony of the fact that the experimenttor has some kind of

a power up to these participants who come and participate to your experiments. Somebody you've given an

interview or questionnaire to somebody who comes to your lab to participate in your experimental study. There is

obviously this overlap. There's obviously this power differential. There's also something interesting that

when these participants come to a psychologist for experimentation of whatever kind for that matter they

sometimes carry the belief that you have some knowledge about them or during the process you will gain gain some

knowledge about them their personalities their characteristics etc which will give you know you power over them all

right so that ways you have to be very careful about this you know sensitivity to this power differential between being

an experimentter, being a researcher and you know inviting a participant uh for your study. So this is this has been one

of the most basic ethical concerns in research with uh you know especially with humans that basically you know is

this inherent power differential between the researcher and the research participant. This occurs as I am saying

because the researcher has a higher status than the participant and is able to control the proceedings the

participant's behavior and also how the data that are collected are going to be eventually used. you know you can

basically sometimes uh you know the participants might be afraid of the fact that oh I'm giving some data I'm

providing my personal information via this survey or via this interview to this experimentter and I am concerned

that this data might be used for something else obviously if the participant is concerned about that uh

then they may not naturally respond in the first place but if they do they might be concerned about the fact you

have to assure them they might be concerned about the fact that you might misuse this data. The data may not

remain confidential. The data may be shared with people who can identify uh you know the participant. So uh part of

this is also uh you know uh making it uh making the participants assured that the data will be kept confidential and

there's that no uh you know uh in in no manner any kind of uh you know uh let's say uh power uh thing will be uh

enforced upon them. they will not be forced to do anything. That the participation in this research is

absolutely voluntary and that the data is kept absolutely confidential are two cornerstones of freedom of choice and

maintaining this power differential between the or actually uh debunking this power differential between the

researcher and the participant. Also say for example if you if you look at this situation more closely the experimentter

is the one who tells the participant what to do what and when to do it and also determines whether the participant

receives the reward or the course credit for the payment uh you know co credit uh in compensation for participating in the

experiment or not and in that sense that also sort of provides a little bit of a you know power appendage to uh the

researcher. Now some there are things that you have to be extremely careful about say for example avoiding abuses of

power. All right. The fact that researcher uh has power over the participant places the researcher in a

position uh in which there is the possibility of abuse of this power. I as I was saying uh participants might just

be concerned about the about the fact that oh I have participated in a task conducted by this researcher and in

doing so I might have parted with some of my very private details some of my very internal motivations and so on as

part of responses to your survey. Now the thing is as a researcher you may or may not misuse that data. A that becomes

a cause of concern for the participant. B you have to be very careful and be very ethical about this fact that you

have to ensure assure to the participant that this data is going to be kept confidential and it is not going to be

used to identify you or to be used against you for any uh purpose whatsoever.

So as researchers one have to be extremely sensitive about this. they have to be extremely you know uh

sensitive about uh avoiding any abuse of power or potential abuse of power that is you know uh basically gained by this

overall uh you know protocol. So this abuse by the way can range from showing up late to the research session

without apology to promising the participant money for the participation which is not going to be given to them

anyways and in that sense this is all in some sense exploitation. You've called the participant, the participant is

there uh you know at the designated time but you did not turn out and the participant is waiting for you. So

you're basically exploiting and misusing their time. Also sometimes researchers would part you know promise a bunch of

money to the participant in exchange of participation even though the funds are not available for that. So what you're

basically doing is you are creating this uh you know expectation and you're not living up to it and in that sense that

is also some kind of an abuse of power because what you're doing is you called the participant led in for that money or

reward that was promised but you did not have the reward in the first place. So you sort of you know uh cheated the

participant into participating in your experiment. Also anytime the uh research participant

is coerced into for you know performing a behavior that he or she shall regret uh this power relationship between the

researcher and the participant has been misused. So anytime you deceive the participants into doing something that

uh you know you they did not want to do in the first place. They would not have done if not for the experiment in the

first place. That is where you should realize that you know there this power differential has been misused and this

inherent power differential basically uh you know demands that the former continually and carefully ensure. So

this is something that as researchers all of us must be doing is that we continually and carefully ensure that

all research participants have been treated fairly and respectfully and they've not been exploited and their

time has been compensated and they've not been led to false expectations and uh you know false beliefs and in that

sense you know this power has not been exploited against them. A very important aspect within this whole theme is this

idea of uh you know uh respecting and uh you know assuring the participants privacy. For example, a potential source

of ethical concern in behavioral research which stems from the control that the researcher has over the use of

this participant's data involves the invision of the privacy of the research uh participant or the violation of the

confidentiality of the data. That is something extremely important and a lot of people are concerned about that. Say

for example between uh and I I'm not talking about the research enterprise but say for example uh somebody is a

counselor or a therapist and uh there's a person who comes and says about their private details and all of that that is

basically secured by this uh you know the uh therapy uh you know the therapy uh confidentiality. Same applies to the

researcher as well. If you have gotten somebody to participate in your research enterprise and uh you know they have

come here they've given you the data they've performed hopefully uh you know honestly you have that data and now it

is your duty that the data is remained absolutely confidentially and in a way that the participant cannot be

identified and that data cannot be misused against them. All right, just uh you know extending this the

private private lives of uh research uh participants uh can also be uh you know invaded say for example in a field

research when for instance the researchers searches through the garbage in a neighborhood or observes behavior

in a public setting uh such as a small town without informing the participants. These issues become particularly

problematic when the research results are later published in a manner in which the

identities of the individuals can be discovered potentially. As a result, scientists typically when you know if

they are sensitive about all of this, they uh use fictitious names of persons and places in their research reports

because the idea is to preserve at all cost the identity and to maintain the confidentiality of the data from the

participants of your given study. All right. Also, this privacy of research participants can be violated in

sometimes in questionnaires in laboratory studies if the data are not coded in an anonymized manner. Sometimes

it is possible that the data cannot be anonymous because the researcher needs to keep track of the participants. But

in in such cases what can be done is that the data is kept in a coded manner. It is kept highly confidential. The

mappings are not known to many people but only the lead researcher and you can take steps to uh you know ensure the

confidentiality of the data and you can still take steps that the participant be assured that the data is absolutely

confidential and is not going to be misused in any manner whatsoever. Now uh the last thing that uh diner and

pander will talk about is this fourth idea and this fourth idea is basically you know describing the nature and the

use of uh research. So this is also extremely important in the sense that a lot of times what happens is that uh

researchers need to use what is called deception. They need to misguide or they need to hide uh the true goal of the

research from their participants. All right. So that basically is called deception and deception occurs whenever

research participants are not completely and fully informed about the nature and the goal of the research that they are

participating in. Now deception can sometimes happen in an active way. Say for example such as when the researchers

tell the participants that he or she is studying learning you remember experiment he or she is studying

learning when in fact the experimental is really concerned with obedience to authority. It can also happen in a more

passive manner. For example, when the participants are not told about the hypothesis that are being tested and the

potential use of the data that is going to be collected. Now, for instance, say for example, a researcher who studying

eyewitness testimony might create a fake crime scene and then later test the participants on their memory about it.

But they're not telling uh you know the all of the details uh of this uh you know whole setup to the participants

because yes they are worried about uh the fact that the uh you know this knowledge will uh corrupt their results.

This knowledge will influence the participants behavior in that overall setup. So both active and passive

deception actually can be problematic. For instance, an experiment when in in which individuals are participating in a

study about interviewing uh you know without first being told that the results of the research were going to be

used to develop interrogation interrogation procedures for prisoners of wars. It would be highly unethical.

If you're you know collecting this information but you're going to use the information for a completely different

purpose that is obviously unethical and in that sense you have to be uh you know extremely uh careful uh that such a

thing does not happen and in that sense completely debrief the participants and basically tell them that okay whether or

not I'm going to use this data from your interview depends on you. You have the freedom of choice of telling me whether

this data is to be used or to not be used. But there are obviously situations where deception is absolutely necessary.

For example, uh you know researchers have actually argued for the fact that uh if the participants are told about

their uh you know the true purpose of the research true goal of the research then their behavior will change. But the

idea here is slightly more uh you know uh fragile. If if you would consider that the uh you know this relationship

between the researcher and the uh participant is actually based on mutual trust. This is something I was

mentioning in the previous lecture as well. It's based on mutual trust and cooperation and if deception is involved

in whichever manner that implicit trust sort of that implic implicit trust is broken. Now although some people have

used have argued uh you know that the deception of any sort should never be used in research but there are obviously

arguments for it as well. For example, social psychologists support the use of deception on the grounds that it is

needed to get participants to act naturally and to enable the study of the social phenomena. For example, things

like, you know, altruism or aggression or stereotyping cannot really be done without using deception because if the

participants were informed ahead of time about the study, their knowledge would certainly this knowledge would change

their behavior. Also, social psychologists argue that to study some phenomena such as stress, it is more

ethical to, you know, deceive the participants into thinking uh that they're going to participate in a a

stressful situation than to actually expose them to the stress itself. So there are obviously you know these

concerns about the you know credibility of the data that will be collected if the parts know about this and also

sometimes uh you know the goal is that oh you know we'll deceive them into something uh rather than exposing them

to something harmful. Uh but interestingly uh you know reviews found that uh you know given these uh these uh

you know uh considerations almost 58% of the social psychological experiment do did involve some form of uh deception

and that is basically uh in some sense warranted as well and that is why the code of ethics of the American

psychological association allows for deception uh when extremely necessary. All right. There are obviously

alternative approaches that can be uh taken instead of uh deception. For example, simulation studies. A technique

that has been used as alternative to deception is basically simulation studies where participants are fully

informed about the nature of the overall research and everything and they have been told you know that oh you behave as

if you were in that setting. If I put you in in in situation X Y and Z how would you act? So you don't really put

the person you're basically telling them oh that imagine that you are in that situation and then I'll measure your

reactions and people set up this situation in such a way that uh you know it basically is very similar to the real

world in terms of important elements. For example, people might be asked to uh you know imagine that they are manager

of a large corporation and to make decisions the way they think a manager would make these make decisions. uh or

they might be asked to imagine a situation in in which they might or might not help this other person or any

other person for that matter. Now unfortunately uh you know this whole simulation thing works uh only to the

extent that the participants are being extremely honest. So asking people what they think they would do uh often does

not reflect what they would actually do when put in these situations. uh in fact much of the behavioral research uh you

know uh the findings that there are they demonstrate that people cannot predict what they or others would do in a given

setting. So a lot of times it is just make believe and it basically uh you know uh affects the quality of data that

is collected despite these uh problems. So there is an alternative that you do simulation

studies. There is problems with that alternative that a lot of times you know you're not very sure of that the person

would actually do exactly how they are showing us that they would do you know uh whatever responses we are collecting.

Are they valid responses in the first place or not? But despite these problems there have been simulation studies that

have been uh you know relatively successful in providing insights about human behavior. For example, one of the

very famous studies was the Stanford prison studies which some participants were asked to be prison uh prisoners,

some participants were asked to be guards. Uh and this was basically done on college students, you know. So

prisoners, those assigned to be prisoners were arrested, issued prison numbers and put in cells. Those who

became guards were given uniforms and night. So a entire simulation of the prison and guard situation is uh you

know created. And this simulation was interestingly so successful in the sense that the participants took it so

seriously that on the first day the people who were playing guards actually began to create uh demeaning and bad

experiences for the people who were playing prisoners. Uh eventually this research had to be dis uh you know

discontinued because uh there was obviously a potential uh for uh you know providing psychological stress uh to

these inmates. So sometimes it it can basically you know it shows us that simulations might work but again this is

a bit of a gray area because you're never going to be sure about whether the simulation really works or it does not

work. Now there is obviously uh you know consequences of deception. For example

uh you know there is as as I just mentioned there is among scientists difference of opinion about whether

deception uh you know should be used or should not be used. research investigating uh the effects of

deception on participants in behavioral research suggests that it does not normally produce any long-term uh or

long-lasting psychological effect. So in that sense deception does not is not really that harmful after all is what

overall data tells us. In fact, students who have participated in experiments in which deception was involved actually

reported enjoying them more and receiving more educational benefits from these research studies than those who

participated in non-deceptive research. So there's also you know interesting sort of an outcome uh out of this how do

you sort of uh you know overcome deception there is this idea of debriefing. So as behavioral science uh

research has the potential for producing uh you know long-term changes in research participants uh research

participants need to be fully debriefed after their participation is done. So you use deception that is all right but

after the experiment is done after you've gotten all your data your responsibility is to debrief the

participants about the overall uh you know research that was done. So debriefing typically occurs immediately

after the research has ended and is designed to explain both the purposes and the procedures of the research and

remove any harmful after effects of the research uh you know protocol that the participants have gone through.

Now although debriefing is an essential part of uh you know all behavioral research, it is particularly important

in research that involves deception because then it can be used to both assess the effectiveness of deception

and to alleviate its potential impact on the research participants and in that sense sometimes you know it's also used

to check whether the deception really worked whether the participants suspected of some interesting

manipulation that is going on. So in that sense you can also test those kinds of things as well. There are a couple of

ways that we can sort of talk about say for example conducting a postexperimental interview. A lot of

times you know uh debriefing procedure is is so elaborate it is combined with the what is called the postexperimental

interview where the participants reaction to research are assessed. You know what is their experience? Sometimes

they are asked to uh you know describe in detail their experience of participating in the research. They are

first asked sometimes to verbally express or to write down what they felt during the research and uh you know

their reactions are obtained whatever they've said it basically obtains whether the respondents experienced the

research as expected if they were suspicious and if they did take the research seriously and performed

honestly throughout the research. So it has basically multiffold benefits in the sense it sort of provides the

experimental with a good idea about what went on with the participant and whether whatever the participant experienced was

what the you know experimenters were originally intending but it also sort of uh you know gives the participant an

entire detail of what they are in for what was the procedure why was the procedure so conducted and so on. So it

is a post experimental interviews is is something that I think uh you know a lot of researchers should follow. It's

something that we've also done in our lab and it's something that really uh been useful to understand how our

experiments are working as well also ensuring the effectiveness of debriefing. So a lot of times what

happens is that debriefing will not solve all the problems of treating the participants with respect and fairly and

so on or say for example it will not solve all the issues that sort of can crop up with deception but sometimes it

basically is is a good idea to uh conduct what is called process debriefing. What is process debriefing?

Process debriefing is basically an active attempt to undo any changes that might have occurred during the

experimental protocol being administered. For example, if the experiment involved uh you know uh

creation of a negative mood state, researchers might go out and uh you know follow a positive mood induction

procedure with all these participants before they are uh you know uh asked to leave and before they can sort of go

home. So this is also something that uh you know researchers can do and they basically say for example if you've

shown too many negative images if you've basically put the participant in a very com uncomfortable situation it might not

be such a bad idea to sort of uh you know try and reverse these effects by counteracting the manipulations that

have happened in the research protocol. But again it's it's important to remember that neither of these things

can completely guarantee uh to undo the effects of deception of uh you know uh you know the overall research uh

protocol and so on. Okay. So again these were the uh if I remember correctly these were the overall uh

concerns in conducting uh experimental research. Nowadays what happens is that there are institutional review boards in

most institutions. For example in India the ICMR provides uh you know the institutional ethics committee uh with a

particular license and the inst institutional ethics committee for both medical and non-medical research follows

a set of protocols and those protocols basically have all of these details. They have things like the informed

consent form, the participant uh the participant information document and basically what happens is that whenever

a researcher is designing a particular research uh design, they submit this research design to this institutional

ethics committee like for example we have an ID KPUR and it basically has all the details. There are things like

whether the research contains any probable risks or not. Uh are there compensations or not? uh is the data

going to be kept confidentiality all of the concerns that we've uh you know discussed in the last two lectures are

basically covered in this ethical approval form and the ethical approval form goes to the institutional ethics

committee there are members who look look after it there it has a particular uh you know uh composition that there

are doctors also there are researchers also there are uh you know NGO people also in that committee and they uh

basically uh you know uh sort of overview your research. They review your research and they basically uh ensure

that the research is conducted within ethical bounds and in that sense it is an effort to uh you know ensure uh the

rights uh the well-being uh and the psychological and physical uh uh you know uh health of the participants that

are participating in this research. And uh for a lot of researchers it is important that it is extremely important

to get the approval from these institutional ethics committee when you will be have when you will have

completed your research. It'll also be used uh you know when journal articles basically you know most journals ask for

the IEC numbers uh the ethical committee approval numbers uh so that their uh you know article can be processed further

for publication and so on. So in that sense I I hope that the last two lectures have told us enough about uh

how ethical research has to be conducted. What are the key concerns and how as researchers we can take care of

them and basically conduct research in within an ethical uh you know uh manner. Uh thank you. I'll continue this uh

continue a different topic in the week five. Thank you.