To learn whether criticism and regulation of research practices have been followed by a reduction of deception or use of more acceptable approaches to deception, the contents of all 1969, 1978, 1986, and 1992 issues of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology were examined. Deception research was coded according to type of (non)informing (e.g., false informing, consent to deception, no informing), possible harmfulness of deception employed (e.g., powerfulness of induction, morality of the behavior induced, privacy of behavior), method of (...) deception (e.g., bogus device or role, false purpose of study, false feedback), and debriefing employed. Use of confederates has been partly replaced by uses of computers. "Consent" with false informing declined after 1969, then rose in 1992. Changes in the topics studied (e.g., attribution, socialization, personality) largely accounted for the decline in deception in 1978 and 1986. More attention needs to be given to ways of respecting subjects' autonomy, to appropriate debriefing and desensitizing, and to selecting the most valid and least objectionable deception methods. (shrink)

Ethics is normative; ethics indicates, in broad terms, what researchers should do. For example, researchers should respect human participants. Empirical study tells us what actually happens. Empirical research is often needed to fine-tune the best ways to achieve normative objectives, for example, to discover how best to achieve the dual aims of gaining important knowledge and respecting participants. Ethical decision making by scientists and institutional review boards should not be based on hunches and anecdotes (e.g., about such matters as what (...) information potential research participants would want to know and what they understand, or what they consider to be acceptable risks). These questions should be answered through empirical research. Some of the preceding articles in this special issue illustrate uses of empirical research on research ethics. This article places empirical research on research ethics into broader perspective and challenges investigators to use the tools of their disciplines to proactively solve ethical problems for which there currently exist no empirically proven solutions. (shrink)

This article is intended to guide online course developers and teachers. A brief review of the literature on the misconceptions of beginning online teachers reveals that most accept the notion that putting one’s lecture notes online produces effective learning, or that technology will make education more convenient and cost-effective for all concerned. Effective online learning requires a high level of responsibility for learning on the part of students and a reduction of the teacher-student power differential. This, in turn, has major (...) implications for faculty and course development, student selection criteria, the cost of instruction, and the outcomes of education. Effective online teaching focuses on processes of learning rather than outcomes, and is consistent with modern principles of learning that emphasize focusing on issues of high interest to learners, teaching students to use skills of active and effective learning, providing prompt feedback, and enabling students to establish learning goals and employ alternative paths to achieving those goals. Multiple ways of operationalizing these goals online are presented. Tips are offered concerning selection of students who are capable of benefiting from the online experience, developing curriculum that is user-friendly, using resources that stimulate good writing and critical thinking, and limiting class size to a manageable number. (shrink)

Whistleblowing, its antecedents, and its aftermath are complex and varied phenomena. Motivational factors in the perception of alleged misconduct and in the response to such allegations by the accused and the institution are examined. Understanding the psychological processes that underlie some of the surprising behavior surrounding whistleblowing will enable those who perceive wrongdoing, as well as the professional societies and work organizations which voice their concern, to better respond to apparent wrongdoing, while preserving the reputation and mental health of all (...) parties to such cases. (shrink)

The federal regulations of human research were written to permit the use of discretion so that research can fit the circumstances under which it is conducted. For example, the researcher and institutional review board could waive or alter some informed consent elements if they deem this the morally and scientifically best way to conduct the research. To do so, however, researchers and IRBs would first have to use mature moral and scientific judgment. They might also have to rely on empirical (...) research to discover the most effective way to act on their moral sense. On discovering the most ethical way to proceed, they would then need to look to the federal regulations of human research to discover how to document their decision and justify it within that somewhat flexible regulatory structure. Unfortunately, many IRBs and researchers fail to take these sensible steps to solve ethical problems and proceed immediately to a default requirement of the regulations that places science at odds with the regulations and, ostensibly, with ethics. The following articles in this special issue are about the process of learning to engage in ethical problem solving and using the flexibility permitted by the federal regulations. These articles extricate researchers from the mindset that has gotten them into trouble, and, ideally, provoke them to use mature common sense and moral judgment. (shrink)

Mandatory reporting laws, which vary slightly from state to state, require reporting by helping professionals when there is reasonable cause to suspect child abuse. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) require researchers to warn subjects of this duty to report, which may have a chilling effect on subject rapport and candor. Certificates of confidentiality, in conjunction with other precautions, may reduce some barriers to valid research. Attempts to resolve problems created by reporting laws must produce the most valid research, while minimizing harm (...) and distress to research participants, their families, and the researcher and meeting local and federal legal requirements. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Ethical Issues in Social Research. Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp, Ruth R. Faden, R. Jay Wallace, Jr., and LeRoy Walters. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. xii + 436 pp. $25.00 (hardcover); $8.95 (paper). Ethics of Human Subject Research. Edited by Allan J. Kimmel, Jr. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1981. 106 pp. $6.95 (paper). Social Research Ethics. Edited by Martin Bulmer. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1982. xiv + 284 pp. $39.50 (hardcover); $14.50 (paper). The (...) Ethics of Social Research: Field‐work, Regulation and Publication. Edited by Joan E. Sieber. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1982. x + 187 pp. $23.50 (hardcover). The Ethics of Social Research: Surveys and Experiments. Edited by Joan E. Sieber. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1982. xii + 249 pp. $23.50 (hardcover). (shrink)

The federal regulations of human research were written to permit the use of discretion so that research can fit the circumstances under which it is conducted. For example, the researcher and institutional review board (IRB) could waive or alter some informed consent elements if they deem this the morally and scientifically best way to conduct the research. To do so, however, researchers and IRBs would first have to use mature moral and scientific judgment. They might also have to rely on (...) empirical research to discover the most effective way to act on their moral sense (e.g., to discover how best to approach potential research participants and explain the nature and purpose of the research participation for which they are being recruited, to ensure comprehension and competent decision making). On discovering the most ethical way to proceed, they would then need to look to the federal regulations of human research to discover how to document their decision and justify it within that somewhat flexible regulatory structure. Unfortunately, many IRBs and researchers fail to take these sensible steps to solve ethical problems and proceed immediately to a default requirement of the regulations that places science at odds with the regulations and, ostensibly, with ethics. The following articles in this special issue are about the process of learning to engage in ethical problem solving and using the flexibility permitted by the federal regulations. These articles extricate researchers from the mindset that has gotten them into trouble, and, ideally, provoke them to use mature common sense and moral judgment. (shrink)

Although there is usually agreement about the ethical principles that should govern research on children, there may be little agreement on how those principles should be interpreted into research procedures in some instances. Empirical research on ethical issues that arise in research on children can often elucidate ways to improve on existing research practices and ways to resolve debates about best practices. Following in the success of evidence-based medicine, evidence-based ethical problem solving in human research can enable investigators to avoid (...) such poor alternatives as doing nothing, endlessly debating, or acting on the basis of hunch or time-honored but dubious research practices. A variety of approaches to evidence-based ethical problem solving are illustrated in this article. (shrink)

Adequate Citation of data sets is crucial to the encouragement of data sharing, to the integrity and cost-effectiveness of science and to easy access to the work of others. The citation behavior of social scientists who have published based on shared data was examined and found to be inconsistent with important ideals of science. Insights gained from the social sciences, where data sharing is somewhat customary, suggest policies and incentives that would foster adequate citation by secondary users, and greater openness (...) and sharing in other disciplines. (shrink)

The sharing of research data is now mandated by some funders to encourage openness and integrity in science, to ensure efficient use of research funds, and to provide training resources. Although data sharing has a long history in some parts of science, the full range of possibilities and challenges it offers are only now becoming apparent in the social sciences. This article (a) examines what may be entailed in sharing documented data, (b) provides a historical perspective on data sharing, (c) (...) describes some of the creative and successful data-sharing relationships that have occurred in the social sciences, and (d) discusses some of the main concerns of social scientists with respect to sharing their data and how these concerns might be resolved. (shrink)

This is an account of the evolution of ideas and the confluence of support and vision that has eventuated in the founding of the Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE). Many factors have contributed to the creation of this rather atypical academic journal, including a scientific and administrative culture that finally saw the need for it, modern electronic technology, individuals across the world who were committed to somehow finding common ground between researchers and those charged with ethical (...) oversight of research, a network of helpful colleagues, and a university whose administration gave moral support to the endeavor in a time of fiscal austerity. Perhaps equally important were the decisions to make JERHRE a nonprofit undertaking, to emphasize the implications of empirical research for specific best practices, to serve the educational needs of those concerned with human research, and to seek to stimulate the interest of students in gaining an evidence-based understanding of the research contexts in which they decide to work. This article explores the ‘chemistry’ that has made it possible to develop a somewhat unorthodox journal and set of related activities. (shrink)