9.1.15, 9.1.16, 1.2.7, 4.2.2 - Human and animal research ethics

Ethical principles and their authority

Ethical research requires a reasoned judgement throughout an investigation, rather than a signed form or approval that makes every later action acceptable.

The specification explicitly names the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009). Its four organising principles are respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. Respect includes people's dignity, autonomy and privacy. Competence means working within the researcher's knowledge and skills. Responsibility includes considering harm to participants and society. Integrity requires honest, accurate conduct and reporting, including managing conflicts of interest.

These principles work together. For a school questionnaire, respect supports voluntary participation and privacy; competence requires an appropriate, understandable measure; responsibility requires anticipating distress or pressure; integrity prevents inventing responses or concealing an inconvenient result. A research design too weak to answer its question wastes participants' effort even if it is physically harmless.

The 2009 code remains a prescribed reference, not a claim that professional guidance stopped in 2009. The BPS publishes a later Code of Ethics and Conduct, identifying the archived 2009 version, and a separate Code of Human Research Ethics (2021). Current real research must use the applicable current guidance, institutional review and legal requirements. An exam account should accurately identify the reference named in its question.

An ethics review examines a proposed question, procedure, risks, safeguards, consent and data handling before recruitment. It can require changes or reject the design. Researchers must then follow the approved protocol, report relevant changes and respond to problems. Approval does not transfer responsibility away from the researcher or remove a participant's rights.

Valid consent and withdrawal

Valid consent is an informed, voluntary decision by someone able to understand the relevant choice, with a meaningful opportunity to decline.

Provide understandable information about the activities, duration, foreseeable risks, data use and rights. Check understanding rather than relying only on a signature. Participants should not think refusing will damage their grades, treatment or employment. An apparently generous reward can also create pressure, so recruitment and incentives need proportionate review.

Right to withdraw means a participant can stop participation without penalty. Explain how they can request removal of identifiable data and any genuine limits in advance. After fully anonymous data have been collected without a link to an individual, it may be impossible to locate and remove one person's response. A clear consent process explains this limitation rather than promising an impossible deletion or quietly changing the rules afterwards.

For children, appropriate permission from a parent or responsible adult does not replace the child's assent, their affirmative willingness to take part at a level they can understand. A child who is distressed or unwilling should not be forced to continue because an adult agreed. Requirements depend on age, capacity, setting and applicable rules. Research involving people whose capacity to consent is in doubt needs suitable specialist review; it is not justified by assuming a diagnosis removes everyone's ability to choose.

For a safe classroom investigation, an independent invitation, the ability to skip a question and a genuine alternative activity help avoid pressure. Use benign topics and an approved procedure. A teacher collecting responses in front of classmates can undermine voluntariness even while saying “this is optional”. Design the situation so the stated right can actually be exercised.

Deception, protection and privacy

A researcher's desire for natural behaviour must be weighed against the participant's ability to make an informed choice and avoid harm.

Deception includes deliberately misleading participants, while withholding information can also compromise informed consent. Revealing the precise hypothesis may change behaviour, but “it improves validity” is not sufficient justification for any deception. Researchers should examine alternatives, scientific value, likely distress and whether people are being denied information that would reasonably affect their decision. A procedure that conceals substantial risk is especially serious.

Debriefing explains the true purpose and any deception after participation, checks wellbeing, answers questions and offers appropriate support and data-withdrawal opportunities where feasible. It cannot undo all distress or retrospectively make an unacceptable procedure ethical. Historical obedience and conditioning studies are evaluated in their own lessons; learners should analyse their evidence rather than repeat harmful procedures.

Protection from harm includes psychological distress, humiliation, social consequences and physical risk. Collecting intimate experiences may cause distress or reveal information affecting relationships. Safer alternatives include harmless scenarios, questions that can be skipped and supplied data. A researcher's own comfort with a question is not proof that participants will experience it similarly.