Concerning Ethical Case Studies and the APA Ethical Guidelines

First take a look at the 3 Case Studies below.

Study 1, concerns Watson’s famous Little Albert. Although we all know the story of Little Albert, we may not have read Watson and Rayner’s original 1920’s study. Take into consideration the context and spirit of the times or Zeitgeist, if you will, when analyzing this study and the next one. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm

Study 2 tells the story of Wendell Johnson, or more specifically, Mary Tudor’s study of children in an orphanage in Iowa. It’s called the Monster Study for a reason as you will see. The Monster Study

Study 3 concerns Seligman and Maier’s (1967) Learned Helplessness study. Again, it helps to read these original studies when possible, so we can form our own judgments. http://psych.hanover.edu/classes/learning/papers/seligman%20maier%201967.pdf

Your assignment: Please read over these studies and select one to analyze.

You will need to first review APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Read the below module. You will find ethical considerations to current events and historical studies and understand more fully the reason why we need the ethical principles.

Next, in your analysis, give some background information and then tell us which of the General Principles and/ or which Ethical Standard was violated, and explain why. Do you think that the study you choose would be approved by an IRB today? Why do you think the study was allowed or tolerated at the time?

Ethical Guidelines and Considerations

See a Prezi Save or print a PDF

Here is an overview of the concerns associated with research and human subjects. We hope to stimulate your thinking about this important topic.

Think about this:

Corporate Scandals

The Enron, WorldCom, ImClone, and Adelphia companies sent shock waves throughout our economic fabric. Whether the corporate scandals were individually orchestrated or institutionally ignored, the public trust was shattered yet again.

Governmental Abuses

The White House, the intelligence services, and Congress are locked into a war of blame associated with the tragic events of 9/11 and subsequent actions. Public trust is once again being challenged.

Personal Failures and State Secrets

Martha Stewart, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly all have stirred a variety of emotions among fans and followers. Whether the failing in question is cheating, performing provocative behaviors, or lying, the public is again assailed with trust-breaking behaviors.

Trust is one of the critical components of research, and it appears to be in short supply. As researchers, we face increasing difficulties in convincing potential participants to trust us.

Background Review

Discussion:Ethical Case Studies

Discussion:Ethical Case Studies

Discussion:Ethical Case Studies

In 1946, the world learned of even more brutality and indifference to human life during a trial of those who had sworn “primum non nocere (first do no harm).” Numerous incidents of inhumane experiments and countless cases of euthanasia resulted in the conviction of 16 doctors. Seven were executed.

The Nuremberg Code of 1947 established specific guidelines for the medical profession in conducting research. These included voluntary consent, a requirement that the results cannot be obtained in other ways, and a requirement that subjects can terminate their participation.

The Helsinki Declaration of 1964 provided very clear guidelines for biomedical practitioners. It also stipulated that independent committees should review certain research efforts.

The Belmont Report was the seminal document in later efforts to establish legal obligations for biomedical and behavioral research. The report was in response to tasking by the National Research Act of 1974. The report provided the public and researchers with clear principles and guidelines about ethical behaviors with human subjects. The report also outlined the mechanics of informed consent.

The American Psychological Association established ethical standards in 1953. Since then, 10 revisions have occurred. The current (2010) version provides practitioners with guidelines covering most (some would argue too many) professional activities.

Federal Law, State Law, Professional Organizations

45 CFR 46, a result of the Belmont Report, provides very clear and definitive guidance for those performing research with human subjects.

The federal regulation addresses the mechanics and process of ethical research. It covers

institutional review board (IRB) use, construction, and procedures
informed consent form (ICF) construction and application
special (protected) population considerations
The state of Maryland is one of a number of states that have enacted laws to protect human subjects.

Additionally, many professional organizations, like the APA and the American Medical Association, have established ethical codes of conduct that are often more restrictive than federal and state laws.

Federal law is clear: If you conduct research associated with federal money or support, you must comply. If you conduct research that is within the scope of the department or agency but is not supported, then the effort must be scrutinized by an IRB.

Maryland state law is a bit clearer; if human subjects participate in the research, then compliance with the federal regulations (45 CFR 46) is mandatory.

Discussion:Ethical Case Studies

Discussion:Ethical Case Studies

Discussion:Ethical Case Studies

Ethical Challenges

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932)-399 African-American men infected with syphilis were denied medical treatment so researchers could document the natural history of the disease.

Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments (1961-1962)-Stanley Milgram conducted research that resulted in a finding that 65 percent of the participants were willing to administer a shock that would deliver a potentially lethal electrical voltage to a “participant.”

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)-Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment that created a situation that altered individuals’ “normal” social behaviors in sadistic and torturous behaviors. The additional problem was that the researcher became so involved with the research that he was unable to see what was occurring until an outsider pointed it out.

Virginia Commonwealth University Research Program (2000)-A concerned father inadvertently learned several questions on a survey in a research project that his daughter was participating in. One question asked if her father ever suffered from depression, which in and of itself wasn’t overly objectionable. The second question was about whether the father had abnormal genitalia. After receiving inadequate responses to his requests for more information from both the researcher and the administration of VCU, he went to the FDA. VCU had to shut down 1,100 federally funded programs, costing around $10 million, while each was reviewed to ensure compliance with federal law.

Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Krieger Lead Paint Experiment (2001)- the Maryland Court of Appeals overturned lower court findings. Researchers at the Kennedy Krieger Institute were monitoring lead levels in children in homes with known lead paint. This reversal placed JHU on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s radar screen for review.

PolyHeme Study (2004)-PolyHeme was experimenting on the effectiveness of artificial blood. The experiment used victims of catastrophic events who would die without intervention without the participants’ consent. The justification was that the individuals would die without this transfusion. By the way, VCU Hospital was trying to be one of the participating institutions.

The Association of Internet Researchers has issued its preliminary report on the ethical conduct of research using the Internet. The APA recently published several articles on studies using the Internet. Whether we are using the Internet to conduct research or conducting research on users, we face newer questions associated with the “use” of human subjects.
Violations of the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Every year, in compliance with federal law, nonprofit organizations are required to produce a report to members. Part of the APA’s yearly report includes reporting information from the various internal committees and departments. The Ethics Office, within the Executive Office, provides a yearly notice that indicates those APA members who were either expelled or who resigned from the APA because of verified or possible violations of the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.

Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.

Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.

The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

Discussion Questions (DQ)

Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation

Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality

Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes

I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy

For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy

The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication

Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.