Reading List
Hogg MA. Social Psychology . Ninth edition. (Vaughan GM, ed.). Pearson; 2022.
Clarke V, Braun V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. SAGE; 2013.
BPS Code of Human Research Ethics (2021) | BPS. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/bps-code-human-research-ethics-0Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research (2021) | BPS. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-researchResnick B. The Stanford Prison Experiment: Philip Zimbardo defends his most famous work – Vox. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17509470/stanford-prison-experiment-zimbardo-interviewResnick B. The Stanford Prison Experiment: Philip Zimbardo defends his most famous work – Vox. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/6/28/17509470/stanford-prison-experiment-zimbardo-interviewGriggs RA, Whitehead GIIII. Coverage of recent criticisms of Milgrams obedience experiments in introductory social psychology textbooks. Theory & Psychology. 2015;25(5):564-580. doi:10.1177/0959354315601231
Griggs RA, Whitehead GIIII. Coverage of recent criticisms of Milgrams obedience experiments in introductory social psychology textbooks. Theory & Psychology. 2015;25(5):564-580. doi:10.1177/0959354315601231
Mori K, Arai M. No need to fake it: Reproduction of the Asch experiment without confederates. International journal of psychology. 2010;45(5):390-397. doi:10.1080/00207591003774485
Stets JE, Burke PJ. Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. Social psychology quarterly. 2000;63(3):224-237. doi:10.2307/2695870
Onorato RS, Turner JC. Fluidity in the selfconcept: the shift from personal to social identity. European journal of social psychology. 2004;34(3):257-278. doi:10.1002/ejsp.195
Yoo B, Donthu N, Lenartowicz T. Measuring Hofstedes Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of CVSCALE. Journal of international consumer marketing. 2011;23(3-4):193-210. doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
Higgins ET. Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological review. 1987;94(3):319-340. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
Phillips JE, Olson MA. When Implicitly and Explicitly Measured Racial Attitudes Align: The Roles of Social Desirability and Thoughtful Responding. Basic and applied social psychology. 2014;36(2):125-132. doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.881287
Guadagno RE, Cialdini RB. Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings. Social influence. 2010;5(3):152-163. doi:10.1080/15534510903332378
Implicit Association Test (IAT). https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.htmlCialdini RB. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. EPub edition. HarperCollins Publishers; 2007.
Bergquist M, Nilsson A. The DOs and DONTs in social norms: A descriptive dontnorm increases conformity. Journal of theoretical social psychology. 2019;3(3):158-166. doi:10.1002/jts5.43
Griffith TL, Fichman M, Moreland RL. Social Loafing and Social Facilitation: An Empirical Test of the Cognitive-Motivational Model of Performance. Basic and applied social psychology. 1989;10(3):253-271. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_4
The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo. https://www.lucifereffect.com/Perry Hinton. Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in biased person perception. Palgrave Communications. 2017;3(1):1-9. doi:10.1057/palcomms.2017.86
FitzGerald C, Martin A, Berner D, Hurst S. Interventions designed to reduce implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real-world contexts: a systematic review. BMC Psychology. 2019;7(1):29-29. doi:10.1186/s40359-019-0299-7
Drury J. How crowd violence arises and how it spreads: A critical review of theory and evidence. In: Carol A. Ireland ML, ed. The Handbook of Collective Violence Current Developments and Understanding. ; :175-187. https://risweb.st-andrews.ac.uk/portal/en/researchoutput/how-crowd-violence-arises-and-how-it-spreads-a-critical-review-of-theory-and-evidence(4c9f54e0-d07e-4b7d-86a4-c52613ad3eea).html
Reicher S, Hopkins N, Stevenson C, Pandey K, Shankar S, Tewari S. Identity enactment as collective accomplishment: Religious identity enactment at home and at a festival. British journal of social psychology. Published online 2020. doi:10.1111/bjso.12415
House B, Kanngiesser P, Barrett HC, et al. Universal norm psychology leads to societal diversity in prosocial behaviour and development. Published online September 23, 2019. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0734-z
Relationships: Ducks Phase Model of Relationship Breakdown | tutor2u. https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/relationships-ducks-phase-model-of-relationship-breakdownInternational Center for Interpersonal Relationship Research., ed. Interpersona: An International Journal of Personal Relationships. International Center for Interpersonal Relationship Research; 2007:volumes.
Braun V, Clarke V. What can thematic analysis offer health and wellbeing researchers? International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being. 2014;9(1):26152-26152. doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.26152
Larkin M, Shaw R, Flowers P. Multiperspectival designs and processes in interpretative phenomenological analysis research. Qualitative research in psychology. 2019;16(2):182-198. doi:10.1080/14780887.2018.1540655
Dickson A, Knussen C, Flowers P. Stigma and the delegitimation experience: An interpretative phenomenological analysis of people living with chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychology & health. 2007;22(7):851-867. doi:10.1080/14768320600976224
Flowers Paul, Larkin Michael, eds. Introduction. In: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE; 2009:1-8.
Braun V. Successful Qualitative Research. (Clarke V, ed.). SAGE; 2013.
Social Psychology Network. https://www.socialpsychology.org/The British Psychological Society. https://www.bps.org.uk/American Psychological Association (APA). https://www.apa.org/#British Psychological Society., ed. The British Journal of Social Psychology. British Psychological Society; 1981.
Social Psychology News — ScienceDaily. Published Spring 2520. https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/social_psychology/
Assessment 2 Part 2: (40 marks)
Assessment 2 Par 2 template
Due Date: October 7, 2024 @ 11 PM
Students are required to choose a peer-reviewed article and use the guide for critique provided in this Learning Guide – Appendix 2 to conduct a critical analysis of the selected paper. A full copy of each article is available on Canvas under assessment of two details. You need to choose ONE of the following papers:
Berdot, S., Vilfaillot, A., Bezie, Y., Perrin, G., Berge, M., Corny, J., Thi, T. T. P., Depoisson, M., Guihaire, C., Valin, N., Decelle, C., Karras, A., Durieux, P., L, L. M. M., & Sabatier, B. (2021). Effectiveness of a do not interrupt vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 1153.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00671-7Magadze, T. A., Nkhwashu, T. E., Moloko, S. M., & Chetty, D. (2022). The impediments of implementing infection prevention control in public hospitals: Nurses perspectives. Health SA = SA Gesondheid, 27(7), 20332033. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v27i0.2033Please note that you are not required to reference the article you choose for your assessment. You only need to insert the title of the article you chose on the first page. You are, however, required to provide references to support your answers to the questions below by searching for evidence-based literature from peer-reviewed sources.
Note: the word count in this template is only suggestions.
Task:
Please use the questions provided in this guide to critique the journal article. When answering each question, please explain and justify responses where necessary with reference to the current literature. Please see the marking rubric for this assessment on CANVAS.
What is the title of the article?
Title: Effectiveness of a do not interrupt vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial
Background of the study (Total: 5 marks)
Provide a summary of the introduction and background identifying the key concepts of the article. (100 – 150 words)
The research by Berdot et al. (2021) examines whether the use of do not interrupt vest intervention which is worn by medication administration staff minimizes the number of medication errors in clinical areas. Medication errors pose a significant threat in nursing since they impact patients outcomes. The introduction starts underlining that these errors are caused by interruptions during medications administration. The study will fill the gap of literature on creating Continuum environments for nurses to work without interruptions to minimize errors. The study aimed to use a crossover where interruptions were to be compared in different healthcare sectors in order to establish the effectiveness of the visual cue (vests with do not interrupt) message (Berdot et al., 2021). Westbrook et al. (2010) have established in prior work that interruptions during medications administration raise the probability of medical errors, and therefore, efforts to minimize interruptions are essential to improve quality of care. Focusing on the patient safety issue in medication administration, the article contextualises the need for a system to reduce distractions and outlines the deficiencies of the existing distractive minimisation interventions. Accordingly, the study presents the vest intervention as a realistic solution to this issue.
Why is the article relevant to nursing practice? (100 150 words)
This article is highly relevant to nursing practice as it addresses a common and critical issue. The major categories of adverse events that pharmacies became involved with were medication administration errors. Nurses get intermittent interruptions during the medication rounds and this makes them prone to errors that are dangerous to patients. In doing so, the study contributes to the state of knowledge of the best practice for an intervention purported to reduce these disruptions and improve enactment in clinical areas. Hayes et al. (2015) pointed that medication errors have ramifications that include higher morbidity and mortality of patients Thus, vest intervention studys results indicate that error usage could be effectively decreased by effective training and changes in the system. This study raises awareness on the need to enhance the environment in which the nurses work, in order to allow them to optimally execute their tasks in a process that seeks to enhance patient outcomes and safety.
Overview of research design (Total: 5 marks)
What was the aim of the research? (25- 50 words)
The primary aim of the study is to establish the efficacy of the do not interrupt vest intervention in the reduction of actual interruptions and potential medication errors in a set of hospitals and a health centre in a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.
The secondary aim is to assess the nature and possible consequences of errors such as the relationship between errors and numerous risk factors such as interruptions and perceptions of the nurses
What research design did the authors use? Was it appropriate? Why/why not? (150 -200 words)
The authors used a multicentre, cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) for this study. This was an appropriate design because by using randomisation in the study, the research would be able to look at outcomes across many sites in the different hospitals. In medical study, RCTs are considered to have a very high level of evidence because they have minimal bias (Fletcher et al., 2021). The application of the cluster design where instead of individual subjects were generalized into groups (cluster) was inevitable because whole units were enrolled in the intervention (Berdot et al., 2021). A randomized controlled trial is acknowledged as a sound approach of indicating causality, which is always desirable when compared to interventions in healthcare. However, that kind of obstacles like cluster contamination: this means that people outside the target intervention group may also change behaviours and that risk has to be managed. For instance, in a cluster contamination, sometimes, populations other than the intervention group may also alter their behaviours and such a scenario has to be well managed during the research (Berdot et al., 2021).
Data collection (Total: 10 marks)
How was the data collected? (50 -100 words)
The study was conducted in 29 in-patient units of four French adult hospitals from February to July 2017. These include two training hospitals (Georges Pompidou in Europe and Paris Saint-Joseph) and two hospitals dedicated to postoperative care and rehabilitation (Corentin Celton and Vaugirard) (Berdot et al., 2021). Each of the teaching hospitals was randomly selected to provide ten units: 4 medical, 4 surgical and 2 critical care units; and 5 of the follow-up and rehabilitation hospitals each.
Data was collected through paper based coded structured observations. The following data were collected such as potential predictors including the age, sex and years of experience of the nurse, the number of patients per nurse to be cared for, the number of patients included in the round, the time taken to complete the round and whether the vest was removed at the end of the round in the intervention units. Observers recorded information concerning the drug prepared and administered (Berdot et al., 2021). The variables collected on medication administration included the name of the medication, the dose, the dosage form, the route of administration, the preparation of injectable drugs such as the diluent, solvent and speed of administration, the number of interruptions and the kind, and the type of vest worn in the experimental groups.
Was the data collection method appropriate for the study question and the research design? Why/why not? (100 150 word)
The direct observation method was most appropriate for the study question since it delivered raw information on interruptions and mistakes without interfering with the procedure of medication administration to get a clear picture of the effect of the intervention. Furthermore, using trained observers in the RCT studies ensured that the observers themselves largely removed bias and that enhanced reliability (Naseralallah et al., 2023). However, the response of the Hawthorne effect may have impacted the result, in which its focus of awareness causes people to modify their behaviour. Nonetheless, it fits both the research design and objectives to the letter because it enabled the authors to systematically evaluate the practical implementation of the intervention. However, Hawthorne effect has some disadvantages, which include observer bias; the behaviour of the participants may change due to the fact that they are under observation (Oswald et al., 2014). However, this appears to be valid since conducting direct observation enables researchers to capture the details and the process of medication administration as well as the effect of many procedures inclusive of the do not interrupt.
Results (Total: 5 marks)
What were the findings? Discuss the findings of the selected research article? (150 200 words)
The research revealed that increased specificity of the do not interrupt vest intervention had little effect on decreasing medication administration errors as well as interruption rates. The error rates for the administration were 7.09% to the experimental group and 6.23% to the control group with no difference between them (p = 0.192). The most frequent type of error classified was wrong dosage-form and the majority of the errors were found not to have caused any clinical consequence on the patient. The interruption rate was 15.04% for the experimental group and 20.75% for the control group (Berdot et al., 2021). The study found out that several factors that may increase the risk of errors and injury include the patients age, the nurses experience, nurses workload, and exposure to the unit; however, there was no correlation between them and the error rate.
Moreover, the research revealed how the do not interrupt vest intervention was effective at cutting down the number of interruptions that staff made during the administration of medication. However, in the present study, although the percentage of interruption was decreased through the implementation of the intervention, the percentage of medication errors also decreased with moderate degree. As such, this study recommends that in order to minimize medication errors, it is important to reduce interruptions but there might be other underlying values that predispose an environment to errors.
4.2 What other studies did the authors compare their results to and were the results the same or different? (100 150 words)
The findings of the author were discussed in relation to the previous literature on interventions aimed at minimising medication errors and interruptions. Other research has produced less conclusive findings, and interventions such as bar-coding technology and electronic medication administration record (eMAR) have been found to be more effective than others (Moreland et al., 2012). The results of the present study also support other studies that indicated that single bundled interventions like the do not interrupt vest do not reduce errors independently. Addressing a problem at multiple levels and using several interventions are usually more successful.
The authors also stated that the vest intervention was most beneficial in smaller, more active areas where it would not be possible to establish no intervention area. These comparisons supported the conclusion of the study, by presenting the vest intervention as a more versatile method of preventing medication mistakes in various forms of healthcare organisations.
Evidence utilization (Total: 10 marks)
How does the summarised evidence inform the clinical practice of Australian Registered Nurses? (100-150)
The study evidence summarized in this study contributes to the clinical practice of Australian Registered Nurses by highlighting the sources of single interventions in minimizing medication giving errors. However, it also points out that the issue requires intervention from virtually all fronts by harnessing visual signals such as the do not interrupt vest alongside training, redesign of work interface, and technology assistance. This evidence instructs nurses and healthcare organizations to integrate elaborate precautions to reduce interference and improve the safety of patients during medication administration.
The intervention is easier to implement and financially accessible owing to its cheap nature, hence, could be embraced easily in all trilogy facets of healthcare facilities in the country. In addition, the research points out the need to promote a safer work environment for nurses that would be in line with the national patient safety objectives. Through this evidence, nurses can be able to propel the implementation of such interventions in their facilities in order to promote desirable patients results.
Would you implement the findings of this study in your own clinical practice? Why or why not? (150 200)
I would apply the findings of this study in my clinical practice because minimizing interruptions during medication administration is one of the ways in which patient safety can be enhanced. This paper argues that through wearing the do not interrupt vest, the frequency of interruptions can be minimized with the nurses being able to attend to their work better. Yet, I would add to this intervention other ones, like enhancing the workflow in the healthcare team and possibilities of communication. The following would rid of other predisposing factors to medication errors as according to the study findings. Combining the elements mentioned above could have a very positive effect on patient safety.
However, in my perspective, precautions should be taken regarding the problems mentioned by some of the nurses in the study such as complaining of loneliness when they wore the vest. To compensate for this, the intervention would be accompanied by education to the rest of the team and the patients about its necessity. This would assist in creating awareness on the use of the vest within the nursing profession because when used by nurses, they would feel close with their fellows and patients. In summary, the present intervention holds great promise towards enhancing medication safety and would indeed be beneficial to clinical work.
Presentation (Expression/writing & Literature sources/ references) (Total: 5 marks)
6.1 Referencing in-text and in reference list conforms to APA 7th edition referencing style See link for help: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/library/referencing/apa7Hint: Please make sure you list your reference list alphabetically.
Berdot, S., Vilfaillot, A., Bezie, Y., Perrin, G., Berge, M., Corny, J., Thi, T. T. P., Depoisson, M., Guihaire, C., Valin, N., Decelle, C., Karras, A., Durieux, P., L, L. M. M., & Sabatier, B. (2021). Effectiveness of a do not interrupt vest intervention to reduce medication errors during medication administration: a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Nursing, 20(1), 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-021-00671-7
Fletcher, S., Chondros, P., Densley, K., Murray, E., Dowrick, C., Coe, A., Hegarty, K., Davidson, S., Wachtler, C., Mihalopoulos, C., Lee, Y. Y., Chatterton, M. L., Palmer, V. J., & Gunn, J. (2021). Matching depression management to severity prognosis in primary care: results of the Target-D randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of General Practice: The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 71(703), e85e94. https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0783
Hayes, C., Jackson, D., Davidson, P. M., & Power, T. (2015). Medication errors in hospitals: a literature review of disruptions to nursing practice during medication administration. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 24(21-22), 30633076. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12944
Moreland, P. J., GALLAGHER, S., BENA, J. F., MORRISON, S., & ALBERT, N. M. (2012). Nursing Satisfaction With Implementation of Electronic Medication Administration Record. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 30(2), 97103. https://doi.org/10.1097/ncn.0b013e318224b54e
Naseralallah, L., Stewart, D., Price, M. J., & Paudyal, V. (2023). Prevalence, contributing factors, and interventions to reduce medication errors in outpatient and ambulatory settings: a systematic review. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 45(6), 13591377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01626-5
Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., & Smith, S. (2014). Handling the Hawthorne effect: The challenges surrounding a participant observer. Review of Social Studies, 1(1), 5373. https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/handling-the-hawthorne-effect-the-challenges-surrounding-a-partic
Westbrook, J. I. (2019). Association of Interruptions With an Increased Risk and Severity of Medication Administration Errors. Archives of Internal Medicine, 170(8), 683. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2010.65
Assignment One Ethical Principles and Standards Form
The following table summarises the key principles and standards from the British Psychology Society Code of Ethics for Human Research. Please use this table to consider the ethics of the original experiment (prison study or electric shock experiment) that was outlined in Week 1 in relation to current guidelines.
You need to write Yes or No in the ethical standards met column. If you write No, you must give a very brief explanation of how it was not met.
Principle Standards Ethical standards met Yes/No Why are the standards not met by the experiment?
(Only complete for those where the standards are not met.)
1. Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals and communities Participants treated with dignity & their expertise, knowledge and insight respected No In the Milgram study, participants were not told the real purpose of the experiment and that they administering real shocks. The opacity of this matter significantly limited their decision-making power since they could not decide whether to participate in the study or not. Moreover, most of the participants got anxious and emotionally conflicted as they felt they were harming the other person which was entirely due to their deception. Thus, this manipulation interferes with their dignity and autonomy. Such treatment violates ethical standards laid out in the BPS code specifically the respect for autonomy and dignity of the individual.
Avoid discriminatory practices and respect culture, diversity, individual differences & protected characteristics (e.g., participant selection criteria) Yes Rights & processes of withdrawal outlined No In Milgrams study, people in the roles of teacher were routinely coerced to go on hurting the learner even when they had a feeling of repulsion and wished to quit. The language manipulation, whereby the coordinators used verbal prods including You must go on, You have no other option pressured the participants to follow through with the experimenters commands. Such form of pressure gave participants an impression like they are not at liberty to remove themselves from the research voluntarily, a position that is stressful and psychologically demanding.Contemporary ethical requirements also bring objective that participants should have the right to terminate their participation at any time without influence. The subjects in Milgrams study did not have this right, which indicates that ethical standards were breached in this study as the interest of the participants was not the main priority for the experimenters.
Rights of privacy & confidentiality Yes 2. Scientific integrity Research has clear exploratory and/or confirmatory aims, and incorporates quality, integrity & contribution to knowledge Yes Research does not waste resources or participants time Yes Research does not have the potential to cause harm No During Milgram’s study subjects encountered serious psychological threats. A lot confronted significant emotional turmoil while thinking they inflicted genuine pain on another person. These waves of stress appeared in bodily behaviors like shaking and excessive sweating. A few participants faced emotional limitations illustrating the significant consequences of the experiment. According to the BPS Code of Ethics;’the protection of participants is paramount while Milgram’s work clearly transgressed this guideline. Although the investigation delivered essential findings on human psychology the participants faced severe mental distress without enough safety measures to compensate for their distress. This shows the comprehensive risk evaluations and mental health support in studies that examine psychological challenges.
Where risk is identified, protocols are detailed No In both studies, there was no clear procedure to address the risks involved in the respective fields. In the Milgram study, participants were not debriefed appropriately until after the experiment. Specifically, there were no clear risk management procedures formulated to guard against or handle psychological torment during the studies.
3. Social Responsibility Work does not promote individual or societal disruption or discord No The Milgram study also voiced the problems regarding high levels of compliance of people to the wrong authority, which showed possible risks in social relations. While these experiments did offer some valuable information, psychological torture scenarios on subjects were not fully justified.
Protection of vulnerable individuals or groups is upheld No In both studies, the researchers did not effectively safeguard participants who could be vulnerable. The targets in the Milgram study exposed themselves to levels of psychological pressure due to their perception of harming others.
Benefits outweigh risk of psychological or physical harm No Even though these studies may have provided some knowledge that could be deemed helpful, the psychological impact that participants were subjected to cannot be justified. In the Milgram study, participants felt uncomfortable about administering shock.
Work contributes to societal knowledge Yes Demonstrates awareness of predicted and unexpected research outcomes/consequences Yes 4. Maximising benefit and. Minimising harm Participant information is written from a participant standpoint No Participants in Milgram study were not fully informed of the risks involved, and the information provided did not emphasize their well-being during the research process.
Any potential risks to psychological well-being, mental health, personal values and the invasion of privacy or dignity are outlined. Such risks should only exist where they cannot be avoided No In Milgram study, the participants were subjected to severe psychological harm without comprehending the risks involved in such procedures. This shows that in Milgrams study, participants were not informed that their emotional state would be challenged.
Research poses no risk of harm to participants or researchers. Where risk exists, protocols to mitigate harm in place. No There were no robust measures to minimize harm. The psychological aftermath in Milgram research was severe; the participants were deeply affected. Adequate interventions were absent during the study to tackle these concerns in both experiments.
Participants will not be exposed to any risk that would not be expected to occur within their normal lifestyle. No In Milgram study, subjects were placed in artificial situations (shocking another person in the Milgram study) which are very unrealistic and stressful to all the subjects.
Where relevant, power dynamics between researchers and participants are considered. No In both studies, power relations were rather imbalanced. In the Milgram study, the participants felt pressured to obey the directions of the experimenter in delivering shocks despite their discomfort.
Research is sensitive to issues of labelling and participant self-doubt. No Both studies resulted in self-doubt and labeling, especially in Milgrams study, where participants were left with guilt for their actions.
Further Standards set out within the code of ethics that should be adhered to for all psychological research.
Principle Standards Ethical standards met
Yes/No Why are the standards not met by the experiment?
(Only complete for those where the standards are not met.)
RISK
Occurs when research includes more than minimal risk. Protocols to minimise risk should be put in place for researchers, participants or research environments No risk to participants’ social status, privacy, personal values and beliefs, personal relationships, or risk of Adverse effects of a disclosure of illegal, sexual or deviant behaviour. Yes No risk to a society or community based on participants actions. Yes Vulnerable groups (e.g., children, those lacking capacity, individuals in a dependent or unequal relationship) No In both studies enrolled adulthood, power relations. Participants in the Milgram study were placed in submissive positions coerced by authority.
Of sensitive topics (e.g., sexual, drug, alcohol, illegal or political behaviour) Yes Deception leading to risk No In Milgrams experiment, the participants were misled about the type of shocks, which heightened psychological harm to the participants. They thought they were genuinely hurting their opponent, which led to emotional distress.
Access to personal records or confidential information Yes Work induces stress, anxiety or humiliation (e.g., repetitive or prolonged testing) No Measures in both studies escalated stress and anxiety to the maximum. Despite believing they were causing harm, Milgrams participants felt guilty and anxious.
Invasive interventions not encountered during everyday life No In both studies participants conditions were not typical. In Milgrams, participants were put in a situation where they believed that they caused harm.
Adverse impact on employment or social standing No While it cannot be ascertained that the Milgram study had the negative effect on the employment or social position of participants. Much as this study led to serious emotional distress and psychological damages to the participants, none of the participants whose case was studied received a demotion, dismissal or any other consequence that led to their degradation in the society as a result of the experiment. Technically, the ethical concerns are not addressed in terms of professional or social aspects, but more in terms of psychological aspects.
Categorisation (labelling) or self-doubt (e.g., I am not normal) occurs amongst participants No In both studies, participants reported feelings of self-doubt and labeling. According to Milgram, subjects began to doubt their actions and their humanity after being forced to deliver painful shock.
Work includes collection of human tissue, blood or other biological samples Yes Informed consent Informed consent is given after participants are provided with research information. No Participants were unaware of the fake shocks in Milgrams study.
Where data is captured via video or audio recording, participants are aware that they may be identifiable dissemination of these findings will require explicit consent from identifiable participants No The experiment was recorded and publicly displayed in Zimbardos study. Not all participants were aware of it.
Written consent is retained separate to data No In Milgram study, no written consent was obtained for any document with modern ethical guidelines, so the participants were not adequately aware of the risks and nature of the studies.
Where participants are too young or have been assessed to have impairments that restrict their informed consent, the investigator should consult a person well-placed to provide consent/assent (e.g., parent, guardian, family) Yes Any research information withheld at consent for the purposes of unbiased data collection should be included in debrief No The debriefing was insufficient in both studies. In Milgrams, they were unaware of fake shocks.
Confidentiality GDPR requirements are considered Yes Giving Advice Researchers will not offer advice outside of their area of expertise.
It is recommended that no advice on individual performance is provided Yes Deception Deception is only included where honest, unbiased data would not be collectable without deception No Deception is evident in Milgrams study, as participants were not informed that the shocks were not real, and this led to suffering.
Debrief Participants will be given all relevant information about research on completion of their participation. Any information withheld to achieve an unbiased data set is provided No In both studies, debriefing was insufficient to counter the emotional harm caused. In Milgrams study, distress was still present after debriefing.
Competence Researchers should always work within the limits of their professional competence No In both studies, ethical boundaries were crossed and professional boundaries were violated. In Milgrams experiment, the harm that was done was that researchers rarely considered the duration aspect of psychological trauma.
Part Two: Applying BPS Ethical Principles
Assess the ethical standards of the study, considering each of the four overarching ethical principles of the British Psychological Societys Code of Ethics for Human Research in turn. These can be found in Chapter 2 of the code.
Principle 1 Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals and communities
Principle 2 Scientific Integrity
Principle 3 Social Responsibility
Principle 4 Maximising Benefit and Minimising Harm
RUBRICS
Ethics standards table accurately identifies where ethical requirements are not met for risk, informed consent, confidentiality, giving advice, deception and debrief in line with the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics, This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Summary demonstrates understanding of each ethical principle and the relevant key standards. This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Summary accurately identifies the shortcomings of the chosen study in relation to each ethical principle This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Summary critically assesses the extent to which each principle was met in the chosen study This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Well-written and articulated responses This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Assignment One Ethical Principles and Standards Form
The following table summarises the key principles and standards from the British Psychology Society Code of Ethics for Human Research. Please use this table to consider the ethics of the original experiment (prison study or electric shock experiment) that was outlined in Week 1 in relation to current guidelines.
You need to write Yes or No in the ethical standards met column. If you write No, you must give a very brief explanation of how it was not met.
Principle Standards Ethical standards met Yes/No Why are the standards not met by the experiment?
(Only complete for those where the standards are not met.)
1. Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals and communities Participants treated with dignity & their expertise, knowledge and insight respected Avoid discriminatory practices and respect culture, diversity, individual differences & protected characteristics (e.g., participant selection criteria) Rights & processes of withdrawal outlined Rights of privacy & confidentiality 2. Scientific integrity Research has clear exploratory and/or confirmatory aims, and incorporates quality, integrity & contribution to knowledge Research does not waste resources or participants time Research does not have the potential to cause harm Where risk is identified, protocols are detailed 3. Social Responsibility Work does not promote individual or societal disruption or discord Protection of vulnerable individuals or groups is upheld Benefits outweigh risk of psychological or physical harm Work contributes to societal knowledge Demonstrates awareness of predicted and unexpected research outcomes/consequences 4. Maximising benefit and. Minimising harm Participant information is written from a participant standpoint Any potential risks to psychological well-being, mental health, personal values and the invasion of privacy or dignity are outlined. Such risks should only exist where they cannot be avoided Research poses no risk of harm to participants or researchers. Where risk exists, protocols to mitigate harm in place. Participants will not be exposed to any risk that would not be expected to occur within their normal lifestyle. Where relevant, power dynamics between researchers and participants are considered. Research is sensitive to issues of labelling and participant self-doubt. Further Standards set out within the code of ethics that should be adhered to for all psychological research.
Principle Standards Ethical standards met
Yes/No Why are the standards not met by the experiment?
(Only complete for those where the standards are not met.)
RISK
Occurs when research includes more than minimal risk. Protocols to minimise risk should be put in place for researchers, participants or research environments No risk to participants’ social status, privacy, personal values and beliefs, personal relationships, or risk of Adverse effects of a disclosure of illegal, sexual or deviant behaviour. No risk to a society or community based on participants actions. Vulnerable groups (e.g., children, those lacking capacity, individuals in a dependent or unequal relationship) Of sensitive topics (e.g., sexual, drug, alcohol, illegal or political behaviour) Deception leading to risk Access to personal records or confidential information Work induces stress, anxiety or humiliation (e.g., repetitive or prolonged testing) Invasive interventions not encountered during everyday life Adverse impact on employment or social standing Categorisation (labelling) or self-doubt (e.g., I am not normal) occurs amongst participants Work includes collection of human tissue, blood or other biological samples Informed consent Informed consent is given after participants are provided with research information. Where data is captured via video or audio recording, participants are aware that they may be identifiable dissemination of these findings will require explicit consent from identifiable participants Written consent is retained separate to data Where participants are too young or have been assessed to have impairments that restrict their informed consent, the investigator should consult a person well-placed to provide consent/assent (e.g., parent, guardian, family) Any research information withheld at consent for the purposes of unbiased data collection should be included in debrief Confidentiality GDPR requirements are considered Giving Advice Researchers will not offer advice outside of their area of expertise.
It is recommended that no advice on individual performance is provided Deception Deception is only included where honest, unbiased data would not be collectable without deception Debrief Participants will be given all relevant information about research on completion of their participation. Any information withheld to achieve an unbiased data set is provided Competence Researchers should always work within the limits of their professional competence Part Two: Applying BPS Ethical Principles
Assess the ethical standards of the study, considering each of the four overarching ethical principles of the British Psychological Societys Code of Ethics for Human Research in turn. These can be found in Chapter 2 of the code.
Principle 1 Respect for the autonomy, privacy and dignity of individuals and communities
Principle 2 Scientific Integrity
Principle 3 Social Responsibility
Principle 4 Maximising Benefit and Minimising Harm
RUBRICS
Ethics standards table accurately identifies where ethical requirements are not met for risk, informed consent, confidentiality, giving advice, deception and debrief in line with the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics, This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Summary demonstrates understanding of each ethical principle and the relevant key standards. This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Summary accurately identifies the shortcomings of the chosen study in relation to each ethical principle This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Summary critically assesses the extent to which each principle was met in the chosen study This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
Well-written and articulated responses This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion