In psychology we refer to ethical guidelines which are set down for us by the BPS (British Psychological Society). As psychologists we have a moral duty to protect our participants from harm. It is for this reason we follow the ethical guidelines. The question is, do ethics go too far sometimes?
The main focus of debates about ethics often includes deception, potential harm, informed consent and confidentiality.
It is stated by the BPS that if a proposed piece of research has ‘scientific, educational or applied value’ then deception may be considered. Otherwise we are not supposed to intentionally deceive participants. However, by telling a participant everything there is to know about a study means that they are much more likely not to give genuine results and show demand characteristics so which side are we to take?
Milgram’s study was unethical due to deception. He told his participants that the study was to investigate the effects of punishment on learning. This wasn’t the case, so he intentionally deceived his participants.
If you would like to read further on Milgram’s study I have provided a link.
http://psychology.about.com/od/historyofpsychology/a/milgram.htm
Informed consent must outline the study to the participant, and gain their consent. But is it always possible to gain informed consent? It is not, but this is acceptable if the study requires studying participants in an everyday situation where they would expect to be viewed i.e in a shopping centre. Participants must receive an outline of the study, what procedure is going to be used, possible risks, the aim of the study and the length of the study. However with informed consent, demand characteristics could again play a part in not providing a reliable set of data.
Confidentiality is keeping the participants and the data they provide confidential unless full consent is gained from the participant to use their results again. However, in the case of a brain scan being obtained for a study and an abnormality being found nothing can be done without causing some harm to the participant. So do we keep the information secret or tell the participant when we are not qualified to diagnose, and there potentially be nothing wrong?
Potential harm is the psychological harm we could cause by conducting a study. There is always a degree of harm that could be caused. The ethical guidelines are there to determine which can or cannot go ahead. For example, the potential harm in Zimbardo’s prison experiment was huge, but it was conducted as ethical guidelines were not there to say otherwise. The results from this experiment were huge, so are ethics too restricting in some cases?
Again the link below details The Stamford Prison Experiment, should you want to read up on it. http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm
So, do ethics hinder psychological discoveries in any way? I personally believe that ethics are important, and that we, as psychologists, need guidelines as to what can and what cannot be done. Studies which were once approved would now never happen, but with ethical guidelines in place, big discoveries are still being made. However, some guidelines do hinder a study, or affect a studies result in some way. But without ethics the results from a psychological study would not be reliable, or valid and for psychology to be considered a science the use of ethics is vital.
mypsychjournal 
Oct 14, 2011 @ 14:25:58
An understanding of how effective ethics are in the outcome of research in psychology is stated in this blog. I too agree that ethical guidelines are not restrictions, but a better path for we, as psychologists to follow in methods of investigation. They allow psychologists to keep clients and participants integrity in check, becoming sensitive to their needs in an experiment. This is vital in research, as all clients must feel valued and understood.
Milgram’s study of obedience is a great example, you may also want to use the study of Little Albert. No informed consent was given from Little Albert’s mother, and the phobia learnt through this study too, was psychologically harming for Little Albert. The Stanford Prison study by Zimbardo is also another example of unethical research that wouldn’t be condoned at this time.
Ethics can be considered too restricting, if critics prove it be unethical. However the findings may still be true, but the overall outlook of the research would not be considered to ethical BPS standards and seen to be unethical, and invalid.
We as psychologists must approach ethics with care. We seek to find a result from a question unanswered, and we should give the time and patience to see that all ethical guidelines are considered to ensure validity and reliability in our research to further our knowledge and to be considered as a science.
Oct 17, 2011 @ 17:52:22
I agree with you when you say a study’s findings may well be true, but if ethical restrictions say that the study unethical, they are soon regarded as untrue, or unscientific.
I agree there is a definite need for ethical guidelines as participants need be protected and must also feel valued. Ethical guidelines still allow research to take place, but not studies as have happen in the past, which have harmed participants.For a study to be considered reliable and valid, and for psychology itself to be considered a science, we have to follow the ethical guidelines as closely as possible.
Oct 18, 2011 @ 18:52:01
I agree with you in saying that ethical guidelines are essential in Psychological research in order for the results to be valid and to ensure the protection of the participant. As you said about a brain scan showing abnormal results, I believe that the researcher should be able to inform the participant’s doctor in order to prevent unnecessary upset however the ethical guidelines state that this would be breaching confidentiality and it is there fore not allowed. Although ethical guidelines ensure the safety of a participant, I also feel that they are a hindrance to many Psychological experiments and that Psychology would be at a much more advanced level than it is at today if these ethical guidelines were non existent.
Oct 18, 2011 @ 18:55:32
Another point i would like to add to your conclusions is that if the ethical code of conduct is not followed then this could have a disastrous effect upon psychology as a subject. The media may publish an unethical study that will slam psychology as a subject, if you are familiar with the ‘Moral Panic’ theory then the media could use something like this to create a panic about psychology being unethical. This could lead to huge cuts in funding and therefore less research could be made. Some people would argue that if Ethics are not followed then Psychology will not progress as a subject and research will be very limited due to the cuts in funding and unwilling participants.
Therefore i agree that ethical guidelines should be closely followed.