Psychology Quiz: Research Ethics
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Research EthicsQuestion 1 of 20

A prison psychologist offers inmates who are nearing their parole hearings the opportunity to participate in a research study on impulse control. The psychologist implies that participation would reflect positively on their rehabilitation efforts. This recruitment strategy is ethically problematic primarily because it introduces the element of:

Coercion, by suggesting that non-participation could lead to a negative outcome.
Undue influence, by offering an excessive reward for participation.
Deception, by misrepresenting the benefits of participating in the study.
Breach of confidentiality, by linking research participation to parole records.
← Back to quizzes

Psychology Quiz

Psychology Quiz: Research Ethics

Practice Research Ethics in Psychology with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Research Ethics, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Psychology.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A prison psychologist offers inmates who are nearing their parole hearings the opportunity to participate in a research study on impulse control. The psychologist implies that participation would reflect positively on their rehabilitation efforts. This recruitment strategy is ethically problematic primarily because it introduces the element of:

  1. Coercion, by suggesting that non-participation could lead to a negative outcome. (correct answer)
  2. Undue influence, by offering an excessive reward for participation.
  3. Deception, by misrepresenting the benefits of participating in the study.
  4. Breach of confidentiality, by linking research participation to parole records.
Explanation: When evaluating research ethics scenarios, focus on identifying threats to voluntary consent. Vulnerable populations like prisoners face special challenges because their circumstances can compromise their ability to freely choose whether to participate in research. The correct answer is A because this scenario creates coercion. The psychologist's implication that participation would "reflect positively on rehabilitation efforts" suggests that refusing to participate might be viewed negatively, potentially affecting parole decisions. Coercion occurs when potential participants fear negative consequences for declining to participate. Since these inmates are nearing parole hearings, they're in an extremely vulnerable position where any perceived connection between research participation and their freedom creates pressure to comply. Option B is incorrect because no excessive reward is being offered. The psychologist isn't providing money, privileges, or concrete benefits—just implying positive perception. Option C misses the mark because there's no deception about study benefits; the problem isn't misrepresentation but rather the inappropriate suggestion of consequences. Option D doesn't apply since there's no indication that confidential information would be inappropriately shared between research and parole records. The key distinction here is between coercion (fear of negative consequences for refusing) and undue influence (excessive positive incentives). Prison populations require extra protections precisely because their constrained circumstances make them susceptible to coercion. Remember: In ethics questions involving vulnerable populations, look for scenarios where the person's situation creates pressure to participate. Prisoners, students, employees, and patients all face potential coercion when researchers hold power over their circumstances.

Question 2

An IRB is legally required to have at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas and at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution. What is the most important ethical function served by the inclusion of the unaffiliated community member?

  1. To ensure the research protocol is in compliance with federal and state laws, providing external legal oversight.
  2. To represent the perspectives of the community and research participants, ensuring risks and benefits are judged from a non-institutional viewpoint. (correct answer)
  3. To evaluate the scientific methodology of the proposal for flaws that institution-affiliated members might overlook due to collegiality.
  4. To provide a tie-breaking vote in cases where the scientific and nonscientific members are deadlocked on a decision.
Explanation: The primary role of the unaffiliated community member is to provide an external perspective, representing the interests of the community and potential participants. This individual can assess elements like the consent form's readability, the appropriateness of recruitment methods, and the perception of risks and benefits from a layperson's point of view, free from potential institutional pressures or biases. Their role is not primarily legal (A) or methodological (C), although they contribute to the overall review. While they have a vote, their purpose is not specifically to be a tie-breaker (D) but to provide a consistent community perspective.

Question 3

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is reviewing a proposal for a study on the effects of a new, non-invasive brain stimulation technique on memory. The potential benefits include a better understanding of memory consolidation, but the technique has a small but documented risk of inducing mild headaches or dizziness. Under the principle of risk/benefit analysis, which factor would be most critical for the IRB to ensure is in place before granting approval?

  1. The potential benefits to society from the research substantially outweigh the potential risks to individual participants.
  2. The researcher has secured adequate funding to compensate participants for any potential harm they experience.
  3. The protocol includes procedures to minimize the identified risks and to manage any adverse events that occur. (correct answer)
  4. The participants are fully informed that they will receive no direct personal benefit from their participation.
Explanation: While the overall risk/benefit ratio (A) is the guiding principle, the most critical operational requirement for an IRB is ensuring that the researcher has taken concrete steps to minimize risks and has a clear plan to handle adverse events. This is the practical application of the Belmont principle of beneficence ('do no harm' and 'maximize possible benefits and minimize possible harms'). Compensation (B) is important but doesn't mitigate the risk itself. Informing participants of no direct benefit (D) is part of informed consent but doesn't address the management of risk. The IRB's primary function is to protect participants, and ensuring risk mitigation strategies are in place is central to that function.

Question 4

A researcher receives IRB approval for a three-year longitudinal study. Halfway through the second year, the researcher decides to add a new survey module to collect saliva samples for cortisol analysis, a measure of stress. Which of the following actions is ethically required?

  1. Submit an amendment to the IRB for review and approval before collecting any biological samples. (correct answer)
  2. Revise the informed consent form for all future participants and continue the study as planned.
  3. Inform all current participants of the new procedure and ask for their verbal agreement to continue.
  4. Continue the study and report the protocol modification to the IRB during the annual continuing review.
Explanation: When you encounter questions about research protocol modifications, remember that the IRB (Institutional Review Board) system operates on a "no surprises" principle—any changes to approved research must be reviewed before implementation, especially when they involve new types of data collection or potential risks to participants. The correct answer is A because adding biological sample collection represents a substantial modification to the original study protocol. Saliva collection, while minimally invasive, introduces new considerations: potential physical discomfort, privacy concerns about biological data, storage and disposal requirements, and additional risks the IRB must evaluate. Federal regulations require researchers to submit protocol amendments for IRB review and receive approval before implementing any changes that could affect participant welfare or data collection procedures. Option B is insufficient because simply revising consent forms for future participants doesn't address the need for IRB oversight of the protocol change itself, and it ignores current participants who would also be affected. Option C falls short because verbal agreement from participants doesn't replace the required IRB review process—the institution, not just participants, must approve research modifications. Option D violates ethical guidelines by implementing changes before IRB approval; waiting until the annual review means conducting unauthorized research for potentially months, which could jeopardize both participant welfare and the study's legitimacy. For psychology research questions, remember that IRB approval is always required before implementing any protocol changes that affect data collection, participant procedures, or potential risks—even seemingly minor modifications like adding a brief saliva sample.

Question 5

A social psychologist receives IRB approval for a study on group dynamics that involves deceiving participants into believing they are interacting with other students over a computer network. In reality, the 'other students' are a computer program. The approved debriefing script explains that the study was about decision-making. After the study, a participant expresses distress about their performance. Which action represents the most significant failure to meet the ethical standard of debriefing?

  1. Failing to provide contact information for counseling services to the distressed participant.
  2. Failing to explain the necessity of the deception for achieving the study's specific research goals.
  3. Failing to disclose the true nature of the computer-mediated interaction and the study's actual focus on group dynamics. (correct answer)
  4. Failing to obtain explicit written consent from participants to use their data after revealing the deception.
Explanation: The primary purpose of debriefing after deception is to reveal the true nature of the study, explain why deception was necessary, and mitigate any negative effects. By only stating the study was about 'decision-making' and not revealing the confederates were a computer program, the researcher fails to perform the most fundamental step of debriefing: dehoaxing the participant and explaining the actual research question. While providing counseling resources (A) is important for a distressed participant, it's a response to harm, not the core failure of the debriefing itself. Explaining the necessity of deception (B) is a key part, but it's secondary to first revealing what the deception was. Obtaining a second consent (D) is sometimes good practice but not a universal requirement and is less critical than the fundamental disclosure.

Question 6

A developmental psychologist wants to study emotional regulation in preschoolers by observing their behavior during a mildly frustrating task at their daycare. The researcher obtains written informed consent from the parents. During a session, a 4-year-old child begins to cry and says, 'I don't want to play this game anymore.' What is the researcher's primary ethical responsibility?

  1. Consult the parental consent form to confirm that withdrawal is permitted and then end the session.
  2. Honor the child's withdrawal of assent and end their participation in the task immediately. (correct answer)
  3. Gently encourage the child to continue for a few more minutes to ensure data completeness.
  4. Inform the daycare teacher of the child's distress and allow the teacher to decide if the child should continue.
Explanation: For children and other populations unable to give legal consent, researchers must obtain their 'assent,' which is their affirmative agreement to participate. Just as important, a child has the right to withdraw their assent at any time. When the child expresses a desire to stop, the researcher's primary ethical obligation is to respect that dissent and cease the procedure for that child, regardless of parental consent. Consulting the form (A) is unnecessary as this right is fundamental. Encouraging the child to continue (C) would be coercive. Deferring to a teacher (D) abdicates the researcher's direct ethical responsibility to the participant.

Question 7

A researcher is conducting a study on campus attitudes toward a new university policy. They post flyers seeking volunteers and offer a $100 gift card for a 1-hour interview. The university has a large population of students with significant financial need. This recruitment method poses the most substantial ethical question regarding which principle?

  1. Confidentiality, as students may reveal personally identifying information during the interviews.
  2. Risk/benefit ratio, because the psychological risks of discussing a university policy are not well-defined.
  3. Informed consent, because the high value of the incentive may constitute undue influence. (correct answer)
  4. Deception, as the flyer does not state the specific hypotheses the researcher is testing.
Explanation: The core ethical issue here is undue influence. An incentive should compensate participants for their time and effort, but it should not be so large that it becomes the primary reason for participation, potentially blinding them to the risks or pressuring them to consent against their better judgment. For students with financial need, a $100 payment for one hour is a very powerful incentive that could compromise the voluntariness of their consent. Confidentiality (A) is an important but separate issue. The risks (B) are likely minimal. Not stating hypotheses (D) is standard practice and not considered deception.

Question 8

A political scientist wants to study the spread of misinformation by analyzing publicly accessible Twitter posts. The data will be collected automatically, and no direct interaction with the users will occur. The dataset will not include user handles, but the text of the posts themselves will be analyzed. Why would this research likely still require review by an IRB?

  1. Because even with handles removed, some posts may contain enough personal information to make the user identifiable. (correct answer)
  2. Because the users did not explicitly provide informed consent for their posts to be used in this specific research study.
  3. Because all research involving human-derived data, regardless of its public nature, must undergo a full IRB review.
  4. Because the research is funded by a federal grant, which automatically triggers a mandatory IRB review.
Explanation: When you encounter questions about research ethics and IRB review, focus on the core principle that guides these decisions: protecting human subjects from harm, including risks to privacy and confidentiality. Even when data appears anonymous or is publicly available, researchers must consider whether participants could still be identified or harmed. The correct answer is A because removing usernames doesn't guarantee anonymity. Twitter posts often contain personal details, location information, unique writing styles, or references to specific events that could allow someone to identify the original poster. This creates privacy risks that warrant IRB oversight, even for publicly available data. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Option B incorrectly suggests that all public social media research requires explicit informed consent - while consent is ideal, publicly posted content doesn't automatically trigger this requirement if proper safeguards exist. Option C overstates IRB requirements; some research using public, truly anonymous data may qualify for exemption from full review. Option D focuses on funding source rather than research content - while federally funded research often requires IRB review, the trigger here is the potential for participant identification, not the funding mechanism. Remember this key insight for psychology ethics questions: "public" doesn't always mean "anonymous." When evaluating research scenarios, ask yourself whether participants could realistically be identified from the data, even if obvious identifiers are removed. The potential for re-identification often determines whether IRB review is necessary, regardless of whether the original data was publicly accessible.

Question 9

A researcher receives IRB approval for a three-year longitudinal study. Halfway through the second year, the researcher decides to add a new survey module to collect saliva samples for cortisol analysis, a measure of stress. Which of the following actions is ethically required?

  1. Submit an amendment to the IRB for review and approval before collecting any biological samples. (correct answer)
  2. Revise the informed consent form for all future participants and continue the study as planned.
  3. Inform all current participants of the new procedure and ask for their verbal agreement to continue.
  4. Continue the study and report the protocol modification to the IRB during the annual continuing review.
Explanation: When you encounter questions about research protocol modifications, remember that the IRB (Institutional Review Board) system operates on a "no surprises" principle—any changes to approved research must be reviewed before implementation, especially when they involve new types of data collection or potential risks to participants. The correct answer is A because adding biological sample collection represents a substantial modification to the original study protocol. Saliva collection, while minimally invasive, introduces new considerations: potential physical discomfort, privacy concerns about biological data, storage and disposal requirements, and additional risks the IRB must evaluate. Federal regulations require researchers to submit protocol amendments for IRB review and receive approval before implementing any changes that could affect participant welfare or data collection procedures. Option B is insufficient because simply revising consent forms for future participants doesn't address the need for IRB oversight of the protocol change itself, and it ignores current participants who would also be affected. Option C falls short because verbal agreement from participants doesn't replace the required IRB review process—the institution, not just participants, must approve research modifications. Option D violates ethical guidelines by implementing changes before IRB approval; waiting until the annual review means conducting unauthorized research for potentially months, which could jeopardize both participant welfare and the study's legitimacy. For psychology research questions, remember that IRB approval is always required before implementing any protocol changes that affect data collection, participant procedures, or potential risks—even seemingly minor modifications like adding a brief saliva sample.

Question 10

A researcher publishes a series of case studies on individuals with a rare psychological disorder. To protect her subjects, she omits their names. However, she includes their specific occupation, the city they live in, and their age. This combination of details could allow an acquaintance to identify a participant. This situation best illustrates a failure to adequately protect against which of the following?

  1. De-identification.
  2. Anonymity.
  3. Informed consent.
  4. Deductive disclosure. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about research ethics and participant protection, focus on understanding the specific ways that confidentiality can be compromised, even when researchers believe they're being careful. This scenario illustrates deductive disclosure (D) - the correct answer. Deductive disclosure occurs when seemingly anonymous data contains enough specific details that someone familiar with the participants could piece together their identity. Even though names were removed, the combination of occupation, city, and age creates a unique "fingerprint" that could allow acquaintances to identify specific individuals. This is particularly problematic with rare disorders, where the participant pool is already small. Let's examine why the other options don't fit: (A) De-identification refers to the process of removing direct identifiers like names and social security numbers - which the researcher actually did perform. (B) Anonymity means participants cannot be identified by anyone, including the researcher, but this term doesn't specifically capture the risk created by combining quasi-identifiers. (C) Informed consent involves participants understanding the study's risks and procedures before agreeing to participate - there's no indication this wasn't obtained. The key insight is that removing obvious identifiers isn't always enough. For psychology exams, remember that deductive disclosure is the specific term for when combinations of demographic or descriptive information can lead to identification. Watch for scenarios involving rare conditions, small communities, or multiple demographic details that could create a unique profile when combined.

Question 11

A researcher wants to study public behavior in an airport terminal by observing people without their knowledge. The researcher will not record any personally identifiable information and will only take notes on general patterns of movement and interaction. Why is this type of study often considered ethically permissible without informed consent?

  1. Because the researcher has received special training in observational methods that ensures objectivity.
  2. Because airports are quasi-governmental spaces where privacy expectations are legally reduced.
  3. Because the study has a high potential benefit for airport design and security, which outweighs privacy concerns.
  4. Because the observations take place in a public setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter ethics questions in psychology, focus on the fundamental principles that guide research conduct: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The key issue here is determining when informed consent can be waived for observational research. The correct answer is D because observations in public spaces operate under different ethical standards than private settings. In airports, shopping malls, parks, or other public venues, people understand they can be seen and observed by others. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy, which is the crucial ethical distinction. When combined with anonymous data collection (no personally identifiable information), this type of naturalistic observation is generally considered ethically permissible without explicit consent. Option A is incorrect because researcher training, while important for data quality, doesn't address the fundamental ethical issue of consent. Training doesn't automatically grant permission to bypass ethical requirements. Option B focuses on the legal status of airports, but ethical research standards aren't determined by whether a space is governmental or private—they're based on privacy expectations. Option C presents a utilitarian argument about costs and benefits, but research ethics don't allow researchers to simply weigh potential benefits against privacy concerns to justify skipping consent. Remember this principle for psychology ethics questions: the distinction between public and private settings is crucial for determining consent requirements. Public observation without identifiable data collection is typically permissible, while private settings or personally identifiable information collection almost always requires informed consent, regardless of potential benefits.

Question 12

An IRB reviews a study in which participants will undergo a procedure known to cause significant but temporary psychological distress. The research question is of major scientific importance. The IRB's approval of the study under the risk/benefit principle of the Belmont Report would be most contingent upon which of the following conditions?

  1. The participants belong to a non-vulnerable population with high levels of psychological resilience.
  2. The informed consent document uses bold, capitalized letters to emphasize the potential for distress.
  3. The researcher has no vested financial interest in the outcome of the study, eliminating a conflict of interest.
  4. The potential benefits from the knowledge gained are exceptionally high and the risk has been minimized as much as possible. (correct answer)
Explanation: Questions about Institutional Review Board (IRB) decisions under the Belmont Report focus on how ethical research principles are applied in practice. The Belmont Report establishes three core principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. When you encounter IRB scenarios involving risk/benefit analysis, you're dealing with the beneficence principle, which requires maximizing benefits while minimizing harm. The correct answer is D because the risk/benefit principle fundamentally weighs potential scientific value against participant harm. For an IRB to approve research causing significant psychological distress, two conditions must be met: the potential benefits must be exceptionally high (matching the "major scientific importance" described), and researchers must demonstrate they've minimized risks as much as possible while preserving scientific validity. Option A is incorrect because participant resilience, while relevant to risk assessment, doesn't address the core risk/benefit calculation. Even resilient participants shouldn't be exposed to unnecessary harm without sufficient justification. Option B focuses on informed consent procedures, which relates to "respect for persons" rather than risk/benefit analysis—bold formatting doesn't change the ethical calculus. Option C addresses conflicts of interest, which is important for research integrity but separate from the risk/benefit determination that IRBs must make about participant welfare. Remember that IRB questions often test whether you can distinguish between the three Belmont Report principles. Risk/benefit scenarios always center on beneficence—the balance between scientific value and participant protection. Look for answers that address both sides of this equation rather than focusing on procedural details or other ethical considerations.

Question 13

A social psychologist receives IRB approval for a study on group dynamics that involves deceiving participants into believing they are interacting with other students over a computer network. In reality, the 'other students' are a computer program. The approved debriefing script explains that the study was about decision-making. After the study, a participant expresses distress about their performance. Which action represents the most significant failure to meet the ethical standard of debriefing?

  1. Failing to provide contact information for counseling services to the distressed participant.
  2. Failing to explain the necessity of the deception for achieving the study's specific research goals.
  3. Failing to disclose the true nature of the computer-mediated interaction and the study's actual focus on group dynamics. (correct answer)
  4. Failing to obtain explicit written consent from participants to use their data after revealing the deception.
Explanation: The primary purpose of debriefing after deception is to reveal the true nature of the study, explain why deception was necessary, and mitigate any negative effects. By only stating the study was about 'decision-making' and not revealing the confederates were a computer program, the researcher fails to perform the most fundamental step of debriefing: dehoaxing the participant and explaining the actual research question. While providing counseling resources (A) is important for a distressed participant, it's a response to harm, not the core failure of the debriefing itself. Explaining the necessity of deception (B) is a key part, but it's secondary to first revealing what the deception was. Obtaining a second consent (D) is sometimes good practice but not a universal requirement and is less critical than the fundamental disclosure.

Question 14

A researcher is conducting a study on campus attitudes toward a new university policy. They post flyers seeking volunteers and offer a $100 gift card for a 1-hour interview. The university has a large population of students with significant financial need. This recruitment method poses the most substantial ethical question regarding which principle?

  1. Confidentiality, as students may reveal personally identifying information during the interviews.
  2. Risk/benefit ratio, because the psychological risks of discussing a university policy are not well-defined.
  3. Informed consent, because the high value of the incentive may constitute undue influence. (correct answer)
  4. Deception, as the flyer does not state the specific hypotheses the researcher is testing.
Explanation: The core ethical issue here is undue influence. An incentive should compensate participants for their time and effort, but it should not be so large that it becomes the primary reason for participation, potentially blinding them to the risks or pressuring them to consent against their better judgment. For students with financial need, a $100 payment for one hour is a very powerful incentive that could compromise the voluntariness of their consent. Confidentiality (A) is an important but separate issue. The risks (B) are likely minimal. Not stating hypotheses (D) is standard practice and not considered deception.

Question 15

During an in-depth interview study on coping mechanisms for workplace stress, a participant discloses credible plans to embezzle money from their employer in the coming week. The researcher's promise of confidentiality in the informed consent document is now in conflict with which other ethical consideration?

  1. The researcher's obligation to the institution's legal counsel.
  2. The principle of beneficence, which requires maximizing societal benefits.
  3. The potential legal or societal obligations that may limit confidentiality. (correct answer)
  4. The need to debrief the participant on the illegality of their plan.
Explanation: Confidentiality in research is not absolute. It can be limited by federal or state laws that may require reporting of certain information, such as child abuse or credible threats of harm. In this case, the disclosure of a planned felony could fall under a legal or societal obligation to report, creating a conflict with the promise of confidentiality. This is often referred to as a 'limit to confidentiality.' While it relates to the institution (A) and societal benefit (B), the most precise answer is that external laws and duties can override the research protocol. Debriefing (D) is about the research itself, not counseling the participant on their life choices.

Question 16

A political scientist wants to study the spread of misinformation by analyzing publicly accessible Twitter posts. The data will be collected automatically, and no direct interaction with the users will occur. The dataset will not include user handles, but the text of the posts themselves will be analyzed. Why would this research likely still require review by an IRB?

  1. Because even with handles removed, some posts may contain enough personal information to make the user identifiable. (correct answer)
  2. Because the users did not explicitly provide informed consent for their posts to be used in this specific research study.
  3. Because all research involving human-derived data, regardless of its public nature, must undergo a full IRB review.
  4. Because the research is funded by a federal grant, which automatically triggers a mandatory IRB review.
Explanation: When you encounter questions about research ethics and IRB review, focus on the core principle that guides these decisions: protecting human subjects from harm, including risks to privacy and confidentiality. Even when data appears anonymous or is publicly available, researchers must consider whether participants could still be identified or harmed. The correct answer is A because removing usernames doesn't guarantee anonymity. Twitter posts often contain personal details, location information, unique writing styles, or references to specific events that could allow someone to identify the original poster. This creates privacy risks that warrant IRB oversight, even for publicly available data. Let's examine why the other options miss the mark. Option B incorrectly suggests that all public social media research requires explicit informed consent - while consent is ideal, publicly posted content doesn't automatically trigger this requirement if proper safeguards exist. Option C overstates IRB requirements; some research using public, truly anonymous data may qualify for exemption from full review. Option D focuses on funding source rather than research content - while federally funded research often requires IRB review, the trigger here is the potential for participant identification, not the funding mechanism. Remember this key insight for psychology ethics questions: "public" doesn't always mean "anonymous." When evaluating research scenarios, ask yourself whether participants could realistically be identified from the data, even if obvious identifiers are removed. The potential for re-identification often determines whether IRB review is necessary, regardless of whether the original data was publicly accessible.

Question 17

A researcher publishes a series of case studies on individuals with a rare psychological disorder. To protect her subjects, she omits their names. However, she includes their specific occupation, the city they live in, and their age. This combination of details could allow an acquaintance to identify a participant. This situation best illustrates a failure to adequately protect against which of the following?

  1. De-identification.
  2. Anonymity.
  3. Informed consent.
  4. Deductive disclosure. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about research ethics and participant protection, focus on understanding the specific ways that confidentiality can be compromised, even when researchers believe they're being careful. This scenario illustrates deductive disclosure (D) - the correct answer. Deductive disclosure occurs when seemingly anonymous data contains enough specific details that someone familiar with the participants could piece together their identity. Even though names were removed, the combination of occupation, city, and age creates a unique "fingerprint" that could allow acquaintances to identify specific individuals. This is particularly problematic with rare disorders, where the participant pool is already small. Let's examine why the other options don't fit: (A) De-identification refers to the process of removing direct identifiers like names and social security numbers - which the researcher actually did perform. (B) Anonymity means participants cannot be identified by anyone, including the researcher, but this term doesn't specifically capture the risk created by combining quasi-identifiers. (C) Informed consent involves participants understanding the study's risks and procedures before agreeing to participate - there's no indication this wasn't obtained. The key insight is that removing obvious identifiers isn't always enough. For psychology exams, remember that deductive disclosure is the specific term for when combinations of demographic or descriptive information can lead to identification. Watch for scenarios involving rare conditions, small communities, or multiple demographic details that could create a unique profile when combined.

Question 18

Which of the following research scenarios would most likely be reviewed by a full Institutional Review Board, rather than through an expedited or exempt process?

  1. A study involving the analysis of an existing, de-identified public dataset on adolescent health.
  2. A survey study administered to university students that asks about their study habits and dietary preferences.
  3. A study that involves collecting saliva samples from adult volunteers to measure diurnal cortisol rhythms.
  4. A study involving interviews with incarcerated individuals about their experiences with prison rehabilitation programs. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter questions about Institutional Review Board (IRB) processes, focus on identifying vulnerable populations and research risks. IRBs use three review levels: exempt (minimal risk, no vulnerable groups), expedited (minimal risk with standard procedures), and full board review (higher risk or vulnerable populations). Option D requires full IRB review because it involves a vulnerable population—incarcerated individuals. Prisoners have limited autonomy and may feel coerced to participate due to their institutional setting. They cannot freely leave if uncomfortable, and there's potential for exploitation. Additionally, discussing rehabilitation experiences could involve sensitive topics that might affect their legal status or prison conditions. Option A involves analyzing existing, de-identified public data, which typically qualifies for exempt status since there's no direct participant contact and privacy is already protected. Option B describes a straightforward survey about benign topics (study habits, diet) with college students—a non-vulnerable population—which would likely receive expedited review for minimal risk research. Option C involves a standard biological sample collection procedure (saliva for cortisol) from adults, which generally qualifies for expedited review since cortisol measurement is routine and poses minimal risk. Remember this key principle: full IRB review is triggered by either significant risk to participants or involvement of vulnerable populations (prisoners, children, cognitively impaired individuals, pregnant women). Even seemingly simple research becomes complex when vulnerable groups are involved due to concerns about coercion, autonomy, and potential exploitation.

Question 19

A researcher wants to study public behavior in an airport terminal by observing people without their knowledge. The researcher will not record any personally identifiable information and will only take notes on general patterns of movement and interaction. Why is this type of study often considered ethically permissible without informed consent?

  1. Because the researcher has received special training in observational methods that ensures objectivity.
  2. Because airports are quasi-governmental spaces where privacy expectations are legally reduced.
  3. Because the study has a high potential benefit for airport design and security, which outweighs privacy concerns.
  4. Because the observations take place in a public setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you encounter ethics questions in psychology, focus on the fundamental principles that guide research conduct: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The key issue here is determining when informed consent can be waived for observational research. The correct answer is D because observations in public spaces operate under different ethical standards than private settings. In airports, shopping malls, parks, or other public venues, people understand they can be seen and observed by others. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy, which is the crucial ethical distinction. When combined with anonymous data collection (no personally identifiable information), this type of naturalistic observation is generally considered ethically permissible without explicit consent. Option A is incorrect because researcher training, while important for data quality, doesn't address the fundamental ethical issue of consent. Training doesn't automatically grant permission to bypass ethical requirements. Option B focuses on the legal status of airports, but ethical research standards aren't determined by whether a space is governmental or private—they're based on privacy expectations. Option C presents a utilitarian argument about costs and benefits, but research ethics don't allow researchers to simply weigh potential benefits against privacy concerns to justify skipping consent. Remember this principle for psychology ethics questions: the distinction between public and private settings is crucial for determining consent requirements. Public observation without identifiable data collection is typically permissible, while private settings or personally identifiable information collection almost always requires informed consent, regardless of potential benefits.

Question 20

An IRB reviews a study in which participants will undergo a procedure known to cause significant but temporary psychological distress. The research question is of major scientific importance. The IRB's approval of the study under the risk/benefit principle of the Belmont Report would be most contingent upon which of the following conditions?

  1. The participants belong to a non-vulnerable population with high levels of psychological resilience.
  2. The informed consent document uses bold, capitalized letters to emphasize the potential for distress.
  3. The researcher has no vested financial interest in the outcome of the study, eliminating a conflict of interest.
  4. The potential benefits from the knowledge gained are exceptionally high and the risk has been minimized as much as possible. (correct answer)
Explanation: Questions about Institutional Review Board (IRB) decisions under the Belmont Report focus on how ethical research principles are applied in practice. The Belmont Report establishes three core principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. When you encounter IRB scenarios involving risk/benefit analysis, you're dealing with the beneficence principle, which requires maximizing benefits while minimizing harm. The correct answer is D because the risk/benefit principle fundamentally weighs potential scientific value against participant harm. For an IRB to approve research causing significant psychological distress, two conditions must be met: the potential benefits must be exceptionally high (matching the "major scientific importance" described), and researchers must demonstrate they've minimized risks as much as possible while preserving scientific validity. Option A is incorrect because participant resilience, while relevant to risk assessment, doesn't address the core risk/benefit calculation. Even resilient participants shouldn't be exposed to unnecessary harm without sufficient justification. Option B focuses on informed consent procedures, which relates to "respect for persons" rather than risk/benefit analysis—bold formatting doesn't change the ethical calculus. Option C addresses conflicts of interest, which is important for research integrity but separate from the risk/benefit determination that IRBs must make about participant welfare. Remember that IRB questions often test whether you can distinguish between the three Belmont Report principles. Risk/benefit scenarios always center on beneficence—the balance between scientific value and participant protection. Look for answers that address both sides of this equation rather than focusing on procedural details or other ethical considerations.