What ethical principles and research practices must guide psychological investigations?
Apply ethical principles and research methods to psychological investigations, including informed consent, confidentiality, debriefing and the role of ethics committees.
A focused answer to the WACE Year 12 Psychology Unit 4 dot point on research and ethics, assessed across both units. Covers informed consent, withdrawal rights, confidentiality, deception and debriefing, protection from harm, ethics committees, and evaluating classic studies against modern standards.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
This Unit 4 dot point asks you to apply ethical principles to the design and evaluation of psychological research.
Core ethical principles
- Informed consent: voluntary agreement based on adequate information; for minors, parental or guardian consent is also required.
- Right to withdraw: participants may leave at any time, including withdrawing their data afterwards, without penalty.
- Confidentiality and privacy: identifying information is kept secure and results are reported anonymously.
- Protection from harm: physical and psychological harm must be minimised and should not exceed everyday life.
- Deception: withholding or misleading about the true aim is permitted only when no alternative exists, the risk is low, and it is approved; participants must be debriefed.
- Debriefing: restoring participants, correcting any deception, and offering support or referral.
The role of ethics committees
Before research begins, a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) reviews the proposal to ensure it complies with ethical guidelines. In Australia these guidelines follow the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Statement, and the Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics governs professional conduct. The committee weighs the potential benefits of the research against the risks to participants and can require changes or reject a study.
Evaluating classic studies against modern standards
Several landmark studies would not pass a modern ethics committee, which makes them excellent material for evaluation questions.
- Milgram's obedience study caused participants severe stress and used deception about the shocks; participants could not easily withdraw given the experimenter's prompts.
- Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment exposed participants to psychological harm and the researcher's dual role as superintendent compromised oversight; it was stopped early.
- Watson and Rayner's Little Albert study conditioned fear in an infant who was not desensitised afterwards, breaching protection from harm.
In the exam, name the specific principle (not just "it was unethical"), give the evidence from the study, and weigh harm against benefit when reaching a judgement.