Ethics and Replicability Study Notes

ETHICS (Dr. Kettering)

• Document context: An ethics-focused module led by Dr. Kettering; foundational framing for research conduct, participant treatment, and the social responsibilities of scientists.
• Core aim: Integrate ethical principles with practical research guidelines; prepare students to evaluate ethical dimensions in real-world studies and high-profile controversies.

FRAUD & REPLICABILITY CRISIS ACTIVITY

• Activity structure (Page 2):
  • Count off by 11 to form groups.
  • Each group selects a case corresponding to their group.
  • Each group must find and present:
  • The general topic of the case
  • A sample of publications associated with the topic
  • Any publications that were redacted
  • Any legal or university-level actions taken
  • Your summary of how you think that field should proceed
• Purpose: To explore the breadth and implications of the replicability crisis across different fields, understand publication practices, and discuss reforms.

MIND THE HYPE… (Broader Lessons on Replicability and Media)

• P-hacking & researcher flexibility:
  • Small studies, multiple outcomes, and selective reporting can produce false positives.
  • Result: inflated apparent evidence for effects that may not replicate.
• TED + media amplification:
  • Popular science communication sometimes outpaces scientific consensus, shaping public expectations.
• Replication crisis in psychology:
  • Power posing became a symbol of why replication, preregistration, and transparency matter.
• Nuance vs. hype:
  • Later meta-analyses suggest posture may modestly affect self-reported feelings,
    but not robustly affect physiology or behavior in a replicable way.
• Significance:
  • Highlights the need for preregistration, transparent reporting, larger samples, and robust replication to build reliable knowledge.

GUIDELINES FOR ETHICAL RESEARCH

• Social and clinical value: Research should ultimately benefit society and participants.
• Scientific validity: Methodology must be sound; results must be credible and reliable.
• Fair subject selection: Selection processes should be just and inclusive where appropriate.
• Favorable risk-benefit ratio: Risks to participants should be minimized relative to potential benefits.
• Independent review: External assessment (e.g., IRB/ethics committee) to evaluate ethics and safety.
• Informed consent: Participants must understand the study and agree voluntarily.
• Respect for potential and enrolled subjects: Protect privacy, autonomy, and welfare throughout the research lifecycle.

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE

• Current state: No systematic study yet on how different aspects of the replicability crisis (failures to replicate, criticisms of questionable practices, proposed reforms) affect public trust in science.
• Policy development: On August 7, a presidential executive order could restructure federal grant awarding processes.
• Reference action: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/improving-oversight-of-federal-grantmaking/
• Summary of the order:
  • Move to reduce final decision-making authority for federal grant approvals from scientific review boards.
  • Appoint individuals at agencies to serve in place of or alongside traditional review boards.
• Implications:
  • Potentially shifts the balance between scientific oversight and political/administrative control; raises questions about independence, transparency, and the public’s trust in funding decisions.

ETHICS (General Framework for Research Conduct)

• Core responsibility: Be honest and respectful to people affected by research, including participants and readers of reports.
• Consent forms:
  • Provided at the beginning to enable informed consent.
  • Include information about the study so participants can decide on participation.
  • Participant signature required.
• Debriefing:
  • Provided at the end of the study.
  • Explains the actual purpose of the study, especially if deception was used.
• Ethical aim: Ensure participants understand their rights, risks are minimized, and researchers are accountable for the integrity of the research process.

ETHICS: KEY CODES AND BOARDS

• Nuremberg Code (1947): International guidelines for ethical use of human participants.
• Belmont Report (1979, U.S.): Three core principles:
  • 1) Respect for Persons: Participants should give informed consent and be treated as autonomous agents.
  • 2) Beneficence: Minimize risks and maximize benefits.
  • 3) Justice: Fairness in the distribution of research burdens and benefits.
• Institutional Review Board (IRB):
  • A committee at every institution that examines proposed research using human participants.
  • Responsible for safeguarding ethical principles and approving study protocols before data collection.

DECEPTION IN RESEARCH

• Passive deception:
  • Withholding information from participants about the true purpose of the study.
• Active deception:
  • Providing misinformation to mislead participants about the study’s purpose.
• Confederate:
  • A person who pretends to be a participant but is actually part of the research team (e.g., used in the Asch Line Judgment Study).
• Ethical tension:
  • Deception can be methodologically useful but raises ethical concerns requiring strong justification and thorough debriefing.

ASCH'S LINE JUDGMENT STUDY

• Classic conformity experiment: Participants judged line lengths in the presence of confederates who gave obviously incorrect answers.
• Key insight: Social pressure can lead individuals to conform to incorrect judgments despite obvious evidence to the contrary.
• Ethical notes: Involved deception and potential participant distress; contributed to debates about the acceptability of deception in research and the need for debriefing.

MILGRAM SHOCK EXPERIMENT (OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY)

• Setup (Milgram, 1963):
  • Three roles in the room: a) Participant (Teacher), b) Confederate (Learner), c) Experimenter.
  • The experiment purportedly investigates memory and learning.
  • Teacher is instructed to deliver a shock to the learner for every incorrect answer.
• Procedure:
  • Shocks start at 15 volts and escalate in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts.
  • Protective cover: 30 levers total control the voltage levels.
  • Teach/learner dynamic: Learner (confederate) responds to questions and supposedly receives shocks when wrong.
• Research question: How many participants would deliver the maximum 450-volt shock?
• Significance: Demonstrates the power of authority and situational pressure on obedience; foundational for ethics discussions and led to reforms in research ethics.

MILGRAM SHOCK EXPERIMENT: DATA STRUCTURE AND INTERPRETATION

• Voltage range and increments:
  • $V \in {15, 30, 45, \dots, 450} = {15k \mid k=1,2,\dots,30}$
  • The escalation involved 30 levels (levers).
• Typical outcome representation (as seen in the provided chart):
  • Percent of participants remaining in the experiment decreases as voltage increases.
  • Sample data points shown on the chart include values such as 100, 80, 88, 40, 40, 60, 60, 20, 20, 0 across various levels.
• Ethical implications:
  • Reveals potential for harm when following authority, raising questions about participant wellbeing and the necessity of debriefing.
  • Contributed to reforms like stricter consent processes, better risk assessment, and the rise of IRBs.

MILGRAM RECRUITMENT/RESEARCH PUBLICATION AD (Page 12)

• Public recruitment flyer for a memory and learning study at Yale University.
• Compensation:
  • $4.00$ dollars for approximately one hour of participation.
  • Additional $0.50$ carfare.
• Study details:
  • Target population: Need for participants; emphasizes the one-hour nature and no special training required.
  • Time flexibility: Evenings, weekdays, or weekends.
• Demographics and eligibility:
  • Age: 20–50 years
  • Occupation categories listed: factory workers, city employees, laborers, barbers, businessmen, clerks, professional people, telephone workers, construction workers, salespeople, white-collar workers, etc.
  • Exclusion: High school and college students explicitly not eligible in this flyer.
• Participation logistics:
  • Interested individuals fill out a coupon with name, address, phone, best time to call, age, occupation, sex.
  • Guidance on scheduling and study participation is provided.
• Ethical note:
  • The flyer illustrates historical recruitment practices and the context in which early social psychology studies recruited participants; contemporary ethics would scrutinize inclusivity, informed consent, and fair compensation.

KEY CONNECTORS AND PRACTICAL TAKEAWAYS

• Foundations in ethical theory:
  • Respect for persons, beneficence, and justice guide participant rights and researcher responsibilities.
• Practical impacts:
  • Ethical guidelines (Nuremberg, Belmont) and IRBs shape how studies are designed, conducted, and reported.
  • Deception can be a tool with legitimate research value, but requires rigorous justification, debriefing, and protection of participants.
• Relevance to current research:
  • Replicability and transparency are central to maintaining public trust and the integrity of scientific findings.
  • Public policy and grant oversight can influence scientific independence and accountability.
• Real-world applications:
  • When designing studies, consider potential harms, obtain informed consent, plan for debriefing, preregister hypotheses, and ensure data reporting is transparent and complete.

SUMMARY OF FORMULAS, NUMBERS, AND KEY DATA

• Grouping and study design:
  • Count off by 11 to form groups (group size variable depends on total participants N).
• Milgram shocks:
  • Voltage levels: $V = 15k, \quad k = 1,2,\ldots, 30$
  • Maximum voltage: $V_{max} = 450\text{ volts}$
  • Duration and structure: 3 roles, 30 level escalation, 1 hour sessions typical for the memory/learning task.
• Recruitment flyer (Page 12):
  • Payment: $4.00$ dollars + $0.50$ carfare.
  • Time commitment: ~1 hour.
  • Age range: $20 \leq \text{age} \leq 50$
  • Occupation list includes a wide range of job types; excludes high school/college students.

Ethical and Philosophical Implications (Takeaways)

• The replication crisis highlights the fragility of findings from small, underpowered studies and the importance of robust, preregistered research designs.
• The use of deception in classic experiments stimulated ongoing ethical debate and subsequent reforms to protect participants.
• There is a tension between advancing scientific knowledge and safeguarding participants, requiring thoughtful balance, transparency, and accountability.
• Public trust in science hinges on responsible communication, methodological rigor, and oversight of research funding and publication practices.

Connecting to Foundational Principles

• Scientific method alignment:
  • Emphasis on replication, preregistration, and transparency aligns with core scientific norms of testability, falsifiability, and reproducibility.
• Ethical frameworks:
  • Nuremberg Code and Belmont Report provide enduring guardrails for human-subject research.
• Institutional accountability:
  • IRBs and independent review processes aim to minimize harm and promote equitable treatment of participants.
• Real-world relevance:
  • Lessons from Milgram and Asch inform modern ethics training, risk assessment, and the design of human-subject studies in psychology and related fields.