Study Notes
Overview
The study of ethics in psychology is not merely a set of rules, but a dynamic and challenging field of critical thinking. For WJEC A-Level candidates, mastery of this topic hinges on understanding the core conflict known as the 'double obligation': the researcher's duty to society to advance knowledge, versus their duty to the individual participant to ensure their rights and welfare are protected. This guide will deconstruct the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009), providing the framework to analyze complex scenarios. Examiners expect candidates to move beyond simple identification of issues like 'deception' and instead engage in a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis, weighing the scientific merit of a study against the ethical costs incurred by participants. This involves applying the four key principles—Respect, Competence, Responsibility, and Integrity—to novel situations and justifying judgements with precise terminology and evidence from stimulus material. Credit is awarded for demonstrating a nuanced understanding that ethical guidelines are not absolute bans, but frameworks for making difficult, justifiable decisions.
The Four BPS Principles
At the core of all ethical decision-making in UK psychology are the four principles from the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009). Candidates must not only memorize these but understand their practical application.
1. Respect
What it is: This principle is about valuing the dignity and worth of all persons. It involves respecting individual differences and protecting their rights to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination, and, crucially, valid consent.
Why it matters: In exam scenarios, this is often breached when participants are not given enough information to make a truly informed decision, or when their privacy is compromised. Using the term 'valid consent' over 'informed consent' will be credited by examiners as it aligns with specific BPS and WJEC terminology.
2. Competence
What it is: A researcher must operate within the boundaries of their own knowledge, skill, and training. It is a commitment to maintaining high standards of professional work and recognizing the limits of one's expertise.
Why it matters: Marks are awarded for identifying when a researcher might be stepping outside their area of competence, for example, by attempting to study a clinical population without the relevant qualifications, potentially leading to harm or misinterpretation of data.
3. Responsibility
What it is: This is the duty to protect participants from harm (both physical and psychological) and to uphold the reputation of the profession. It directly involves the process of risk management and the cost-benefit analysis.
Why it matters: This is the principle most directly linked to the 'double obligation'. Candidates should explicitly reference a researcher's responsibility to weigh the costs (e.g., participant distress) against the benefits (e.g., new knowledge about treating a disorder). A failure to protect participants from harm is a clear breach of this principle.
4. Integrity
What it is: This principle demands honesty, accuracy, and fairness in all professional interactions. It covers the reporting of data and the justification for any necessary deception within a study.
Why it matters: Deception is a key ethical issue, but simply stating 'deception is wrong' is a low-level response. A sophisticated answer will explain that while deception breaches the principle of Integrity, it may be justified if it is essential for the study's validity. This breach must then be mitigated through a comprehensive debriefing process.
Second-Order Concepts
Cost-Benefit Analysis
This is the central evaluative tool for this topic. It is not a simple tallying of pros and cons. A good analysis involves a qualitative assessment of the severity of the costs versus the significance of the benefits. Aronson's (1992) rule is a key piece of specific knowledge here: he argued that the benefits must be seen to clearly outweigh the costs. If it is a borderline case, the research should not proceed. Candidates should structure their AO3 evaluation around this model.
Dealing with Ethical Issues
Candidates often confuse ethical issues with the methods used to deal with them. It is vital to distinguish between the two for high marks.
| Ethical Issue | Method of Dealing with the Issue |
|---|---|
| Lack of Valid Consent | Gaining presumptive consent, prior general consent, or retrospective consent. |
| Deception | A full, restorative debrief that explains the true aim and offers aftercare. |
| Risk of Harm | A thorough risk assessment, and the participant's right to withdraw at any time. |
| Confidentiality | Anonymising data by removing all personally identifiable information. |