As much as I want to hate the researchers for this, how are you going to ethically test whether you can manipulate people without… manipulating people. And isn’t there an argument to be made for harm reduction? I mean, this stuff is already going on. Do we just ignore it or only test it in sanitized environments that won’t really apply to the real world?
I dunno, mostly just shooting the shit, but I think there is an argument to be made that this kind of research and it’s results are more valuable than the potential harm. Tho the way this particular research team went about it, including changing the study fundamentally without further approval, does pose problems.
how are you going to ethically test whether you can manipulate people without… manipulating people.
That’s a great question. In the US, researchers are generally obliged (by their universities or their funders) to use an Institutional Review Board to review any proposed experiment involving human subjects. The IRB look for things like: causing physical or emotional harm to the subjects, taking advantage of vulnerable populations, using deception without consent, etc. The IRB might let you do something like manipulate a subject, if the subjects were informed that they might be manipulated or deceived. Yes, this might introduce an observer effect, but this type of review is generally accepted as being necessary for doing ethical research. However, I’m not familiar with the research in question or with the requirements of the Univ of Zurich where the researchers are from.
from what I remember from my early psych class, manipulation can be used, but should be used carefully in an experiment.
there’s a lot that goes into designing a research experiment that tests or requires the use of manipulation, as appropriate approvals and ethics reviews are needed.
and usually it should be done in a “controlled” environment where there’s some manner of consent and compensation.
I have not read the details done here but the research does not seem to happen in a controlled env, participants had no way to express consent to opt in or opt out, and afaik they were not compensated.
any psych or social sci peeps, feel free to jump in to correct me if I say something wrong.
on a side note, another thing that this meme suggests is that both of these situations are somehow equal. IMO, they are not. researchers and academics should be expected to uphold code of ethics more so than corporations.
Tutoring psych right now - another big thing is the debrief.
It needs to be something you can’t do without lying, something important enough to be worth lying about, and you must debrief the participants at the end. I really doubt the researchers went back and messaged every single person that interacted with them revealing the lie.
As much as I want to hate the researchers for this, how are you going to ethically test whether you can manipulate people without… manipulating people. And isn’t there an argument to be made for harm reduction? I mean, this stuff is already going on. Do we just ignore it or only test it in sanitized environments that won’t really apply to the real world?
I dunno, mostly just shooting the shit, but I think there is an argument to be made that this kind of research and it’s results are more valuable than the potential harm. Tho the way this particular research team went about it, including changing the study fundamentally without further approval, does pose problems.
That’s a great question. In the US, researchers are generally obliged (by their universities or their funders) to use an Institutional Review Board to review any proposed experiment involving human subjects. The IRB look for things like: causing physical or emotional harm to the subjects, taking advantage of vulnerable populations, using deception without consent, etc. The IRB might let you do something like manipulate a subject, if the subjects were informed that they might be manipulated or deceived. Yes, this might introduce an observer effect, but this type of review is generally accepted as being necessary for doing ethical research. However, I’m not familiar with the research in question or with the requirements of the Univ of Zurich where the researchers are from.
from what I remember from my early psych class, manipulation can be used, but should be used carefully in an experiment.
there’s a lot that goes into designing a research experiment that tests or requires the use of manipulation, as appropriate approvals and ethics reviews are needed.
and usually it should be done in a “controlled” environment where there’s some manner of consent and compensation.
I have not read the details done here but the research does not seem to happen in a controlled env, participants had no way to express consent to opt in or opt out, and afaik they were not compensated.
any psych or social sci peeps, feel free to jump in to correct me if I say something wrong.
on a side note, another thing that this meme suggests is that both of these situations are somehow equal. IMO, they are not. researchers and academics should be expected to uphold code of ethics more so than corporations.
Tutoring psych right now - another big thing is the debrief.
It needs to be something you can’t do without lying, something important enough to be worth lying about, and you must debrief the participants at the end. I really doubt the researchers went back and messaged every single person that interacted with them revealing the lie.
I’m planning a long term study on gaslighting myself.