按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
described in the literature as ethically questionable）。
2。 Freedman and Fraser’s foot…in…the…door pliance field experiment。
3。 Sheridan and King’s modification of Milgram’s obedience study
4。 Zimbardo’s prison simulation。
Subjects
15…25 students are ideal。 Four are selected to act as university research professors； each advocating
approval of his or her proposal。 The rest of the class serves as the IRB （see variations for a possible third role
for 2 impression management observers）。
Time Required for Role…Playing
20…45 minutes for the presentation； questioning and evaluation of the four proposals （5…15 minutes for each
depending on the intensity and detail of the role…playing）。
Time Required for Discussion
10…20 minutes。
Method
1。 Decide which of the research proposals will be presented to the class IRB； depending on your time
schedule。 You may want to add one or more of your own choosing or use only a few of ours。
2。 Preselect the research investigators who will argue for their proposals； either assigning them the
previous week to bee familiarized with the specific proposals or choosing students who arrive
early to the section。 In a large class； you may want to have pairs of students be a research team。
3。 Explain the role…playing scenario。 The researchers； eager to begin their research as soon as possible
with minimal modifications； have submitted a proposal for the experiment to the human subjects
mittee for review。 They have received a reply from the mittee stating that there are some
ethical （and possibly other） questions about the study； and that they have been requested to appear
before the mittee to defend their proposal and presentation strategy。 They should attempt to
defend it as best they can； given the material。 You might even inform them that their entire career
and everything they’ve worked for depends on getting this study through the mittee （with
reasonable modifications）。
4。 The IRB should read the study； each member listing questions to raise。 You may want to alert them
to some specific concerns they might miss。 Appoint a chairperson to coordinate the session。 With a
large class you might save time with two IRBs； the second one preparing the materials for Proposals
427
2 and 4 while the first does 1 and 3。
5。 The first experimenters are invited to present the reasons for seeking approval of their research。
Then the mittee members raise their concerns and objections。 The experimenters have a chance
to reply； after which a group IRB decision is made。
6。 Follow the same procedure for each additional proposal。
7。 Throughout the section； you may act as moderator （or devil’s advocate） to lend support to one side
or the other if the discussion gets bogged down or is missing important points。
PITFALLS TO AVOID
1。 Be sure to create a present…time perspective of this event unfolding now in order to maximize
personal involvement。
2。 Set time limits for review of each proposal； if heated discussion arises； it is easy to run overtime。
3。 Establish the important role of the IRB and possible student representation on it； in order for the
class members to take their roles seriously。
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
1。 What is the overall verdict of the mittee on the studies in question？ What are the individual
verdicts？ Are there any studies that split the mittee or caused a stalemate？
2。 Analyze and summarize specific features of proposals that were found objectionable。
3。 Review specific arguments that were effective or ineffective in persuading the IRB to approve the
research。
4。 Were there stylistic or content features of these proposals that made some more likely to be accepted
than others； for example； reference to prior research； explicit mention of benefits of research； basic
versus applied orientation； rhetoric； etc。？
DISCUSSION； EXTENSIONS； AND EXPERIMENTAL VARIATIONS
1。 Does the concern of an IRB unnecessarily limit scientific research？ What are the drawbacks to such
a system of review？
2。 What should the position be of an IRB at your school； i。e。； what constituencies should be
represented？
3。 How might the status of the researcher influence the IRB； and how can this possible bias be
handled？
4。 Can there ever be true informed consent for populations in coercive environments such as prisons
or for poor people who need the money they get for participating in the research？
5。 How can research be conducted to demonstrate that deception has negative consequences if it is
judged unethical to deceive subjects？
6。 What are the ethical issues in the treatment of animal subjects？ （Perhaps obtain guidelines for such
research from your school。）
7。 Make connections with previous sections：
。 How ethical was the section on guilt； in which one volunteer was instructed to perform
actions outside the classroom so that he would “feel” like a criminal？
。 Is suicide intervention ethical？ Should people be allowed to freely make their own decision
428
in this matter？ What are the limits and safeguards on what can be done under the name of
“education” or “therapy” that is not “research”？
。 Relate this section to the one on impression management by analyzing how the
experimenters tried to manage favorable impressions。 Have two student observers code the
researchers’ behavior and the confirmatory or disconfirmatory questions of the mittee。
8。 Discuss the issue of living in an “experimenting society；” in which we assume that adequate
research will be conducted before new drugs are put on the market or we are exposed to certain
products。 Somewhere in that process； humans or animals were subjects in that research related to
pain； disease； stress； and other noxious experiences。
9。 Raise the problems with “debriefing” subjects after an allowable deception has been conducted in
an experiment。 Can people really be returned to the condition they were in before experiencing an
experimental treatment； given that it was intense enough to influence their behavior？
10。 Consider the public’s positive reaction to “Candid Camera” deception episodes。 What does that
say about us？
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Baumrind； D。 （1964）。 Some thoughts on ethical issues in psychology。 American Psychologist； 19； 421…423。
Kom J。 H。 （1984）。 Coverage of research ethics in introductory and social psychology tests。 Teaching of
Psychology； 11； 146…149。
Steininger； M。； Newell； J。 D。； & Garcia； L。 （1984）。 Ethical issues in psychology。 Homewood； IL： Dorsey Press。
Zimbardo； P。 G。 （1973）。 On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research： With special
reference to the Stanford prison experiment。 Cognition； 2； 243…256。
One survey of IRB actions presents the following data； which the class might find useful。 The data are
for all types of institutions—universities； medical school； hospitals and others （2389 were surveyed）。
IRB Actions Percent
Board modified 33
Modified after an informal discussion with IRB members 7
More information requested 10
No change 44
No data available 6
Total： 100
Here is a description of t