Consent & Protection from Harm Studies

Test yourself on Consent & Protection from Harm Studies

Test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Menges (1973) Review of 1,000 American Studies

Aim: Menges research was titled ‘Openness and honesty versus coercion and deception in psychological research’ and looked at the amount of deception of participants in psychological research.

Method

A meta-analysis of approximately 1,000 studies published in American Psychological Association (APA) journals.

Results

Around 20% of the studies involved giving participants false or misleading information, so they had not given informed consent.
Less than 50% had been debriefed and in only a minority of the research were the participants volunteers; 40% were students participating for credits.
Menges estimated that only 3% of studies involved no deception.

Conclusion

Menges argued that his research showed the necessity for new ethical guidelines, as current research did not reflect the aims of openness and honesty in psychology.

Evaluation

Has led to increased awareness of ethics in psychology.
Has led to the development of new ethical guidelines.
Study has temporal validity – it was carried out in 1973, so hopefully things have changed for the better.

Glass & Singer (1972): Behavioural Aftereffects

The researchers exposed participants to noise to make them stressed.

Adverse aftereffects

Although subjects were able to adapt to loud noise and other stressors in laboratory experiments, they clearly demonstrated adverse aftereffects.
This suggests that adaptation to noise has long term costs.

Method

Laboratory experiment.
5 conditions:
- Predictable loud or soft noise (9 second blast every minute);
- Unpredictable loud or soft noise;
- A control with no noise.
Participants were asked to complete simple task and galvanic skin responses measured.
There was a follow-up proof reading task where the number of errors made recorded.

Results

Although the noise was disruptive at first, participants were able to perform at the same level as the control after 4 minutes and galvanic skin responses returned to control levels.
There are limits to adaptation. Participants in the loud noise conditions struggled more with complex tasks such as reading three dials at the same time (like an air traffic controller might do), than simple tasks.

Aftereffects: proofreading & noise

Conclusion

Noise can affect stress levels and cognitive performance, especially on complex tasks.
Individuals do adapt to noise levels, but this may have long term costs.
Predictable noise has less of an effect than unpredictable noise.
A further variable is perceived control over noise levels. This research has implications for individuals living in noisy urban environments.

Inspiration for research

Glass & Singer’s research was inspired by a report in Fortune magazine where a shift worker from the Bronx had shot a boy from his window because their noise was keeping him awake.
The noise was unpredictable and outside of his control, therefore causing him stress and disrupting his sleep patterns.

Evaluation

Strengths:
- This was a laboratory experiment, so it was controlled and reliable and can be replicated.
Limitations
- Lacks ecological validity; individuals react differently in a laboratory to real life situations.
- Ethics – were the participants protected from harm, mild stress was induced and the experiment had possible long-term aftereffects?
- Individual differences; some people seem less affected by noise than others.