Ethics in Social Psychology - Literature review Example

Ethics in Social Psychology Research William Monk North Central Social Psychology Ethics in Social Psychology Research In any social psychology research, consideration of ethical issues is paramount to the success and validity of the endeavor. Researchers should follow both legal and moral guidelines when they conduct their work. Adherence to procedures and policies set in research aims at mitigating the possible violation of the fundamental rights of human participants. The participants should have sufficient protection for their well-being in the course of study (Fiske, 2010). Associations such as the American Psychological Association dictates the code of ethics. For instance, the researcher should give the participants relevant information regarding the study. However, deception is a crucial tool in researches because it enables an investigator to extract hidden facts, which the researcher cannot obtain when he/she does not use it. This paper will endeavor to discuss the importance of the use of deception in social psychology research when no alternatives are feasible. Deception is an explicit misrepresentation of facts. It takes different forms in social psychology research. For instance, investigators may give a false purpose or distort the findings of the study (Nier, 2012). Deception has been a source of critical controversy among researchers. Some experimenters argue that use of deception allows the researcher to get its finer details. This may not be possible if the investigator had initially informed the participants. Although some psychologists view deception as unethical and immoral, experimenters acknowledge its benefits. For example, they cite that the uninformed participants delight the experience of research and learn many more things than would be learnt were no use of deception made (Ortmann and Hertwig). This clearly indicates that minimum deception is crucial to the actualization of a research despite their claims. Ortmann and Hertwig note that the type of research directs the investigator to decide whether to apply deception or not. It is not plausible for a researcher to use deception in a study that can potentially harm the participants. When deception is inevitable, debriefing session should follow the findings of the study. In this session, the researcher informs the participants about the objective of the investigation. The investigator reveals the purpose, findings, and reconciles with the participants. He/she corrects the problems that emanated from the research. In social and psychological research, deception is a very indispensable tool because of its many advantages. It plays a crucial part in the investigation of unconscious behavior such as anger, aggression and memory. In such cases, deception allows the researcher to design, in a tactful way, a good experiment without eliciting the attention of the participants. Nier (2012) perceives deception as essential in examining behaviors such as persuasion used in counseling and other socially influenced researches. According to him, informing the participants at the outset of research leads to manipulation of variables under investigation. This jeopardizes and compromises the quality of the research findings. The participants fail to provide honest results, which causes skewed outcomes (Nier, 2012). Such research, therefore, fails to conform to the general literature and knowledge about a given phenomenon. Fiske (2010) asserts that deception eliminates possible suspicions between the investigator and the participants. Fiske continues to argue that deception enables the participants to share confidential and crucial information comfortably. The participants with prior knowledge of deception are more suspicious and less effective than those without. Motivation to the study conspicuously misses from the informed participants. This has negative impact on the entire study. Researchers on deception cite that the deceived participants find the whole exercise very interesting and fun (Nier, 2012). During debriefing, they acknowledge that they get many educational benefits. In addition, the participants acquire emotional recovery. Although deception is instrumental to the success of psychological research, there are differing and conflicting views about the context of its application. Many feel that it has no use in the studies while other views positively support it. Ortmann and Hertwig perceive that deception may have dire consequences for some researches. Investigators, therefore, should evaluate its cost before they make their decision on the use of deception in their research (Ortmann and Hertwig). Research that may have potential dangers to the participants demands a disclosure of all the details of the study. This enables the participants to make a well-founded decision as to whether to participate or not in the investigation. This sets limits and boundaries on the use of deception. Whenever investigators apply deception in their work ethics and morals require full justification and a debriefing session. This helps to break any tension that might emanate from the participants (Ortmann and Hertwig) The type of participants also directs the investigator to decide whether deception is applicable in the study. For instance, it is not prudent to apply it on the oppressed participants (Fiske, 2010). Its application will elicit fierce confrontation between the researchers and the participants. Use of deception in such groups fosters disrespect. Moreover, it is very incompatible with the spirit of informed consent. Deception may compromise the quality of researches (Ortmann and Hertwig). Upon suspicion of deception, the participants express signs of uncooperativeness with the researcher. This results in unwarranted showdowns, which are unhealthy to the research. Display of negative emotions is common after the participants come to full knowledge of presence of the element of deception in the study. This becomes a great source of embarrassment to the participants (Ortmann and Hertwig). It affects them both physically and psychologically. The reactions are even worse when participants demand compensation through legal intervention. Such actions water down the investigators efforts. Investigators have an obligation to manage the negative consequences of deception in their researches (Ortmann and Hertwig). This can only happen if they clearly know the type of participants they need in their study and the topic of the study in relation to public or private interest. Researchers should evaluate the risks the study might pose to the participants on their failure to reveal its full information (Ortmann and Hertwig). This is because the study may have serious implications on the behavioral and cognitive changes. Addressing ethical issues and concerns promises to restore confidentiality in psychological researches. Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in the year 1971, affirms the importance and consequences of deception in the social psychology research. In this study, Zimbardo volunteer students from Stanford University acted as “prisoners” and others as “guards” in a mimic prison set at Stanford University. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of prison life on one’s change of behavior. Zimbardo’s research is one of the best researches to analyze the use of deception in investigation. To start with, investigators informed the prisoners about deprivation of their basic civil rights. It is evident that Zimbardo’s team did not give any information on what was to happen in prison. The surprise police arrest of the prisoners confirms the act of deception. The blindfolding, stripping, searching, and spraying that happened after the arrest suggested that the prisoners had no prior knowledge of such actions. This traumatized the prisoners. From the outset, the investigator did not inform the prisoners about the possible risks in the prison life. The crying and release of the first prisoner a few days into the research displayed unexpected humiliation of prisoners in the prison. Furthermore, prisoners revealed deception when they developed unruly behavior while in prison. Their unfriendly encounter with the guards testified towards the acts of deception. The prisoners’ perception of the prison life changed to hostility and unworthy to house human beings. Prison gave a hard time for the prisoners to grapple with its reality. The guards imposed tough rules on the prisoners, which they never expected would be the case. The prisoners resisted and their actions cost them dearly. The guards responded to this resistance by stripping and constantly waking them at odd hours. The prisoners counter responses such as hunger strikes and plans to escape supported the use of deception in this study. Investigator terminated the study only after six to avoid further compromise of the prisoners’ rights. Use of deception in the Zimbardo’s research had both positive and negative outcomes. It elicited reactions as to what extent to allow deception in psychological research. To start with, the aspects of deception painted a real picture of the prison life. The life came out well because the prisoners lacked prior knowledge of such a way of living in prison. The impromptu police arrests, humiliation and frustrations reflected a real life situation. The suffering the prisoners underwent in the hands of police represented a nasty impression of the agony the culprits face. The research was able to get the finer details of awful feelings of prisoners while in prison. These include powerlessness, depression, crying and oppression. Deception affected this research negatively. For instance, the research was ended after only six days though initially it was to be a fourteen-day endeavor. Studies such as Zimbardo’s are very important. They give valuable insights and are exemplary platforms of reforms. It highlights the plight of prisoners where there is violation of their basic rights. Moreover, the research checks excessive use of powers. Undefined structures of governments can destabilize order of operation. The guards in this study testify to this point. They also bring out the adverse effects of situation on individuals’ characters. The study asserts that freedom and liberty are to one’s physical, psychological, and economic development. Zimbardo’s study followed the APA code of Ethics. It had an extensive debriefing session whereby the investigator informed the participants of the purpose of the whole study. This was in accordance with clause 8.08 of APA Ethics Code 2002. This greatly helped the participants to recover from the emotional harm they encountered in the prison. The code provides the procedure of justification of deception. Zimbardo’s research observed this clause. Though they did not initially disclose the full information to the participants, they followed the APA Code of Ethics. This was through the debriefing session. Deception used in the prison experiment is very valuable in psychological research. However, researchers should minimize it and use it when no feasible alternatives exist. References Fiske, S. (2010).Handbook of social psychology, Volume 2. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Nier, J. (2012).Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc. Ortmann, A. and Hertwig, R. The Costs of Deception: Evidence From Psychology. Retrieved on 16 Mar 2012 from http://iweb.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp191.pdf. Read More