Science for Everybody

Contents

• Introduction
• The Role of the BPS Code of Ethics
• Informed Consent
• Alternatives to Fully Informed Consent
• Deception
• Protection from Harm
• Privacy
• Confidentiality
• Dealing with Ethical Issues
• Evaluation
• Strengths
• Weaknesses
• Summary
• Quick Questions
• Key Terms

---

Introduction

Ethical issues arise when the aims of psychological research conflict with the rights, dignity or wellbeing of participants. Researchers therefore need to produce useful and valid evidence while protecting the people who make that research possible.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) provides ethical guidance to help psychologists make these decisions. Important issues include informed consent, deception, protection from harm, privacy and confidentiality.

The Role of the BPS Code of Ethics

The BPS provides a framework for ethical decision-making rather than simply giving researchers a checklist. Its guidance emphasises respect for autonomy, privacy and dignity, scientific integrity, social responsibility and the need to maximise benefit while minimising harm.

Researchers should consider ethics throughout the research process. Universities and other organisations commonly use research ethics committees to review proposed studies. These committees consider scientific value, potential risks, consent procedures and the safeguards researchers plan to use.

Informed Consent

Informed consent means participants receive enough relevant information to make a genuine and voluntary decision about taking part. A briefing or information sheet may explain what participation involves, foreseeable risks, how researchers will use the data, the right to withdraw and who participants can contact with questions.

However, fully informed consent can create a methodological problem. If participants know the exact hypothesis, they may identify what the researcher expects and alter their behaviour. These demand characteristics can reduce internal validity.

Alternatives to Fully Informed Consent

• Presumptive consent: researchers ask people similar to the intended participants whether they would agree to the proposed procedure.
• Prior general consent: people agree in advance to participate in a range of studies while knowing that researchers may sometimes withhold the full purpose.
• Retrospective consent: after researchers reveal the true purpose, participants decide whether they consent to their data remaining in the study.
• Partial disclosure: researchers provide all information needed for safety and voluntary participation but withhold only details that could create demand characteristics.

None of these approaches automatically removes an ethical problem. Researchers must still consider the level of risk, scientific value and participant welfare.

Deception

Deception occurs when researchers deliberately mislead participants or withhold information that would affect their understanding of the research. For example, researchers may provide a false aim, conceal an experimental manipulation or use a confederate without revealing their true role.

Deception can improve validity because participants may behave more naturally when they do not know the exact aim. However, it reduces their ability to provide fully informed consent and may cause distress, embarrassment or a loss of trust.

Dealing with Deception

Researchers should only use deception where it is necessary and justified. Afterwards, participants should receive a full debrief. Researchers should explain the true aim, reveal the deception, answer questions, provide reassurance and offer an appropriate opportunity to withdraw data.

Reflection question: If revealing the true aim would completely change participants’ behaviour, when might the scientific value of withholding information justify deception, and what safeguards would make that decision ethically defensible?

Protection from Harm

Researchers should minimise physical and psychological harm. Possible psychological harm includes stress, fear, embarrassment, humiliation, reduced self-esteem, anxiety and longer-lasting emotional distress.

Researchers should assess risks before collecting data and monitor participants during the procedure. They should stop or modify procedures if distress becomes significant, remind participants of their right to withdraw and provide support where necessary.

A debrief may help correct false beliefs and reassure participants. However, where significant distress has occurred, researchers may need to provide access to counselling or another suitable support service.

Privacy

Privacy concerns whether researchers have the right to observe someone or access information about them. Researchers should consider whether people would reasonably expect their behaviour or information to remain private.

For example, observing ordinary behaviour in a genuinely public place raises different issues from secretly recording a private conversation, accessing a closed online group or collecting personal medical information.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality concerns what researchers do with information after they have collected it. Personal information should normally remain secure and researchers should report findings so that individual participants cannot easily be identified.

• Use participant numbers, initials or pseudonyms.
• Remove unnecessary identifying information.
• Store raw data securely.
• Restrict access to research records.
• Report grouped or anonymised findings.

Privacy and Confidentiality Are Not the Same

A researcher could invade someone’s privacy by secretly observing them in a private setting even if the resulting data were later kept confidential. Equally, researchers might collect information appropriately but then breach confidentiality by publishing information that identifies a participant.

Dealing with Ethical Issues

Before Research

• Seek ethical approval where required.
• Complete a risk assessment.
• Consider a cost-benefit analysis.
• Prepare suitable briefing and consent information.
• Decide whether deception is genuinely necessary.
• Plan secure data handling.

During Research

• Monitor participants for distress.
• Protect privacy.
• Respect the right to withdraw.
• Avoid unnecessary pressure.
• Stop or modify procedures if unacceptable risks emerge.

After Research

• Provide a full debrief.
• Reveal deception and explain its purpose.
• Answer questions and reassure participants.
• Offer appropriate retrospective withdrawal of data.
• Provide additional support where necessary.

A cost-benefit analysis considers whether the scientific or social value of a study outweighs its remaining ethical costs after safeguards have been applied. Because this judgement can be subjective, independent ethics review provides an important safeguard.

---

Evaluation

Strengths

Ethical Guidance Protects Participants and Supports Trust

A major strength is that ethical guidance places participant welfare at the centre of research. Procedures such as informed consent, risk assessment, confidentiality and debriefing reduce avoidable harm. Therefore, strong ethical practice can increase public trust in psychology and make people more willing to participate in future studies.

Ethics Can Improve Scientific Credibility

Ethical procedures can improve scientific credibility. Researchers who document consent procedures, secure their data and submit research to independent scrutiny create a transparent record of how they treated participants. As a result, useful findings are less likely to become discredited because researchers obtained them through unacceptable methods.

Ethical Guidance Allows Proportionate Judgement

Ethical guidance does not completely prohibit potentially problematic procedures. Researchers may sometimes use partial disclosure or limited deception where scientific value is strong, risks remain low and a suitable debrief follows. Therefore, psychology can still investigate behaviours that might disappear if participants knew the exact hypothesis.

Weaknesses

Ethics Can Conflict with Internal Validity

Ethically transparent procedures can sometimes damage validity. Fully informed participants may identify the hypothesis and respond to demand characteristics. Similarly, overt observation may reduce privacy concerns but increase reactivity. Therefore, participant autonomy and methodological validity can sometimes pull researchers in different directions.

Debriefing Cannot Always Undo Harm

A debrief happens after participants have experienced the procedure. Explaining deception does not automatically remove distress, embarrassment or loss of trust. Therefore, researchers cannot justify an excessively harmful study simply by promising to debrief participants afterwards.

Ethical Judgements Can Be Culturally and Temporally Sensitive

Ideas about privacy, consent, authority and acceptable risk can vary between societies and change over time. New technology can also create ethical problems that previous guidance did not anticipate. Consequently, ethics guidance needs regular review and culturally sensitive application.

Strict Safeguards Can Contribute to Sample Bias

Researchers may exclude vulnerable people or individuals for whom consent and risk management are more complicated. This protects those participants but may leave important groups under-represented. Therefore, strong ethical safeguards can sometimes reduce the generalisability of research.

Quick Questions

What is meant by informed consent?

Informed consent means that a participant voluntarily agrees to take part after receiving enough relevant information to make an informed choice.

How can researchers deal with deception after a study?

Researchers should fully debrief participants, reveal the true aim and any deception, answer questions and allow appropriate withdrawal of data.

What is the difference between privacy and confidentiality?

Privacy concerns whether researchers have the right to observe or access a person or their information. Confidentiality concerns how researchers store, use and report collected information.

Give two ways researchers can protect participants from harm.

Examples include completing a risk assessment, stopping a procedure if distress becomes significant, reminding participants of the right to withdraw, debriefing and providing additional support.

Name three alternatives that may be used when fully informed consent would undermine a study.

Presumptive consent, prior general consent and retrospective consent.

Key Terms

Ethical issues – Problems that arise when participant rights, dignity or wellbeing may conflict with the aims or procedures of research.

Informed consent – Voluntary agreement to participate after receiving enough relevant information to make an informed choice.

Deception – Deliberately misleading participants or withholding important information about the true nature of research.

Protection from harm – The requirement to minimise unnecessary physical and psychological risks to participants.

Privacy – A person’s right to control access to themselves, their behaviour and their personal information.

Confidentiality – Protecting participant information from inappropriate disclosure or identification.

Anonymity – Preventing a participant’s identity from being linked to their data.

Right to withdraw – The right to leave research and, within agreed limits, request removal of contributed data without penalty.

Debriefing – Explaining the true nature and purpose of research after participation.

Presumptive consent – Asking a similar group whether they would agree to the proposed research procedure.

Prior general consent – Permission given in advance to participate in a range of studies, including studies where some information may be withheld.

Retrospective consent – Consent obtained after the true nature of the study has been revealed.

Cost-benefit analysis – Weighing the potential benefits of research against its ethical costs and risks.