In 1997, a caged monkey spit into an undergraduate research assistant's (RA) eye. The RA, who was not wearing safety glasses, contracted a rare herpes virus that subsequently killed her (Bragg, 1997).
This tragic incident demonstrates the catastrophes that RAs can experience. Indeed, RAs have been physically assaulted by participants, developed PTSD-like symptoms as a result of coding data or being repeatedly exposed to unpleasant stimuli, and have felt ostracized by their peers as a result of their deceptive activities in a study (for further discussion, see Naufel, 2017; Naufel & Beike, 2013; Naufel & Le, 2017).
Psychology instructors are crucial for preventing such harms to RAs. They have the power to educate students about RA ethics, risks and risk prevention mechanisms. Although ethics is a core aspect of psychology curricula (Dunn, McCarthy, Baker, Halonen & Hill, 2007), discussions pertaining to RA ethics and risks are limited in psychology. For instance, the American Psychological Association Ethics Code lacks specific provisions for handling these RA risks (APA, 2017). Additionally, I have yet to come across any psychology textbook that explicitly addresses RA risks and ethics. Therefore, instructors are often left to their own insights for how to cover such content.
Discussing RA risks in the classroom: Link It and ICE It
Luckily, there are teaching methods for addressing RA risks and ethics. One method, the linking method, connects RA risks and ethics to existing course content. For example, an instructor could talk about social norms in the context of a study testing this effect (e.g., Milgram, Liberty, Toledo & Wackenhunt, 1986). In this field study, observers measured people’s reactions to RAs cutting in line. Milgram and colleagues reported that RAs experienced a range of harms: participants threw RAs from line, and RAs experienced nausea and substantial distress when carrying out their responsibilities. This study emphasizes both the power of social norms and that RAs experience risks when implementing their tasks (see also Naufel & Beike, 2013).
Another method, the Identify-Change-Evaluate (ICE) method, fosters critical thinking and ethical reasoning skills. Additionally, this approach shows the relationship between ethics and validity. With this method, students first identify risks to both RAs and participants. Then, students change the study design to reduce risks to both parties. Following, students evaluate the extent that validity of the study was affected by these changes.
As an example, students could read the classic study on the invasion of personal space (Middlemist, Knowles & Matter, 1976). In this field study, men, who unknowingly were participating in a study, went into a public restroom. A confederate either stood at the urinal next him, a urinal farther away, or did not stand next to a urinal. An observer hid in a stall to record how long it took the participant to urinate. However, because the observer could not hear the stream of urine start or stop, the observers set up a contraption in which a mirror reflected the participant’s lower half of the body. Thus, the observer could see the stream of urine stopping and starting (Middlemist et al.).
First, students could identify the ethical concerns in this study. Foremost, it is questionable the extent that participants’ privacy was preserved. Also, it is questionable the extent that RAs in this study were safe. It is not unfathomable to imagine an unsuspecting participant noticing a mirror reflecting his lower body to an observer in a bathroom stall. And, the participant’s response to such a discovery may not be pleasant (Bering, 2009).
Additionally, students could identify threats to validity. Both observers and confederates are ultimately aware of the condition, which could lead to experimenter biases. This awareness could influence the starting and stopping of the stopwatch (for a review, see Klein, Doyen, Leys et al., 2012). Likewise, confederate actors could subconsciously act in ways that elicit demand characteristics from participants (for a discussion, see Paulas, 2016).
Next, students can change the methodology. For instance, students can research new technologies that can be used to reduce concerns of privacy and eliminate the observer’s role (e.g., an electronic chip could measure the start and stop of the flow of liquid). Also, students can devise methods for eliminating the confederate’s role (e.g., place “out of order” signs on urinals to direct participants to the different stalls). Students have even proposed taking the study out of the bathroom altogether and put it in less concerning environments.
Finally, students can evaluate the new methodologies to determine the extent that the method affects bias, risk and validity. For instance, using technology to measure the stream of urine is likely to yield less biased results than an observer with a timer. Plus, by removing observers from the situation, it eliminates the risk to them. Finally, the procedure increases privacy to the participant (although, some ethical issues still exist).
Many RA injuries could be prevented with a little forethought. By using the linking or ICE methods, instructors can educate students about RA risks. This training can help students and faculty alike think ahead about RA risks and avoid such harms altogether.
1 The RA Bill of Rights outlines the entitlements that RAs have, which includes prompting RA supervisors to consider potential risks prior to beginning a study (Naufel & Beike, 2013). A table in this publication also exists to help RAs and supervisors identify potential risks of a study, and it includes practical solutions for moderating while also allowing the study to take place (Naufel, 2017).
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, Amended June 1, 2010 and Jan. 1, 2017). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.
Bering, J. (2009, Jan. 13). Brave, stupid, and curious: Dangerous psychology experiments from the past. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brave-stupid-and-curiousopens in new window.
Bragg, R. (1997, Dec. 14). A drop of virus from a monkey kills a researcher in 6 weeks. New York Times, Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/14/us/a-drop-of-virus-from-a-monkey-kills-a-researcher-in-6-weeks.htmlopens in new window.
Dunn, D.S., McCarthy, M.A., Baker, S., Halonen, J.S., Hill, G.W., IV. (2007). Quality benchmarks in undergraduate psychology programs, 62, 650-70. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.7.650.
Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C. Magalhaes de Saldanha da Gama, Miller, P.A., & Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7, 572-584. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612463704.
Middlemist, R.D., Knowles, E.S., & Matter, C.F. (1976). Personal space invasions in the lavatory: Suggestive evidence for arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Milgram, S., Liberty, H. J., Toledo, R., & Wackenhut, K. (1986). Response to intrusion in waiting lines. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 683-689. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.683.
Naufel, K.Z. (2017, April). Do no harm (Unless it’s to a research assistant?): Protecting student researchers from risk. Observer, 30(4). Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/do-no-harm-unless-its-to-a-research-assistantopens in new window.
Naufel, K.Z., & Beike, D.R. (2013). The ethical treatment of research assistants: Are we forsaking safety for science? Journal of Research Practice, 9, Article M11. Retrieved from https://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/360/318opens in new window.
Naufel, K.Z., & Le, J. (2017). Do we do no harm? Acknowledging the unacknowledged risks to the psychology student researcher. In R.L. Miller & T. Collette (Eds.) Teaching Tips: A Compendium of Conference Presentations on Teaching, 2015-16. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website: https://teachpsych.org/ebooks/index.phpopens in new window.
Paulas, R. (2016, Feb. 9). The dangers of using study confederates. Pacific Standard, Retrieved from https://psmag.com/social-justice/youre-a-bad-actor-phd-studentopens in new window.
About the author
Karen Z. Naufel is an associate professor at Georgia Southern University in Statesboro, Georgia. She received her PhD in experimental psychology from the University of Arkansas. Her research interests span across health, social and cognitive psychology. She also has strong interests in the ethics of research, particularly the ethical dilemmas research assistants and mentors face. At the undergraduate level, her favorite courses to teach include introductory psychology, cognitive psychology, psychology of evil and health psychology. At the graduate level, her favorite courses to teach include research design and seminar in teaching psychology. Her accomplishments in teaching have been recognized at the university level, with the 2014-15 Award for Excellence in Instruction, and nationally, with the 2010 Jane S. Halonen Early Career Teaching Award from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
