What you'll learn

• What the ethical considerations debate is and why it matters in Psychology.
• How the BPS Code of Ethics guides research decisions.
• How studies such as Milgram (1963) and Bocchiaro et al. (2012) illustrate different ethical positions.
• How to write AO1, AO2 and AO3 points about ethics in essays.

The starting point: what is a “debate”?

A debate in A-Level Psychology is an issue where psychologists can reasonably take different positions. Ethical considerations are not just a checklist of rules — they are a debate about how to balance the rights of participants with the value of gaining knowledge.

In simple terms, ethics asks: Should this research be done, and if so, how can it be done responsibly?

Use this as your mental map: ethical decisions move from a research aim, through key safeguards, to a cost-benefit judgement.

The BPS Code: the core principles

In the UK, psychologists are guided by the British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics and Conduct. For OCR, you should know the ideas rather than memorise every clause.

Respect

Respect means treating participants as people with rights, not just as data sources. This includes informed consent, privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw.

Competence

Competence means psychologists should have the training and skill to conduct research safely and appropriately. For example, a study involving distress or vulnerable participants should not be run by someone untrained.

Responsibility

Responsibility means researchers must consider the effects of their work on participants, researchers, institutions and wider society.

Integrity

Integrity means being honest and accurate. Researchers should not fabricate results, hide important risks, or mislead readers about what their data show.

Key ethical concepts

Informed consent

Informed consent means participants agree to take part after being told enough information to make a meaningful choice. This includes what they will do, possible risks, their right to withdraw and how their data will be used.

Sometimes fully informed consent is difficult. For example, if participants know the exact aim of a study on obedience, they may change their behaviour. Researchers may then use presumptive consent, where people from a similar population are asked whether they think the procedure would be acceptable.

Deception

Deception means deliberately misleading participants or withholding important information. It is not automatically banned, but it must be justified.

Milgram (1963) used major deception: participants believed they were giving electric shocks to a real learner, when the learner was a confederate and the shocks were fake.

Right to withdraw

The right to withdraw means participants can leave a study at any point and can usually ask for their data to be removed. This must be genuinely possible, not just written on a consent form.

In Milgram (1963), the verbal prods such as “You have no other choice, you must go on” arguably undermined this right.

Protection from harm

Protection from harm means participants should not experience more physical or psychological risk than they would in everyday life. Harm can include stress, embarrassment, guilt, fear, loss of self-esteem or social consequences.

Confidentiality and privacy

Confidentiality means personal data should not be shared in a way that identifies participants. Privacy means people should not be observed or recorded in situations where they reasonably expect to be left alone.

Debriefing

A debrief happens after the study. Researchers explain the true aims, reveal deception, check wellbeing and remind participants of their rights.

The main positions in the debate

Position 1: Participant rights come first

This is a rights-based position. It argues that some procedures are unacceptable even if the findings are useful. From this view, participants should never be seriously deceived, pressured or harmed.

A psychologist taking this position might criticise Milgram (1963), because participants were deceived, visibly distressed and pressured to continue.

Position 2: Cost-benefit judgements are necessary

A cost-benefit analysis weighs the possible costs to participants against the scientific or social value of the research.

From this view, some deception or distress may be acceptable if:

• the research has important value
• there is no better alternative method
• risks are minimised
• participants are properly debriefed
• an ethics committee has approved the procedure

Milgram’s defenders argue that his study revealed important evidence about obedience to authority after the Holocaust. Critics argue that usefulness does not justify the level of distress.

Position 3: Regulated compromise

Modern psychology usually takes a regulated compromise position. It does not ban all risk or deception, but it requires researchers to justify and reduce them.

Bocchiaro et al. (2012), the contemporary obedience study, illustrates this better than Milgram. Participants were deceived about a sensory deprivation study and given the chance to whistle-blow, but the procedure was approved by an ethics committee, debriefed carefully, and designed to avoid Milgram-level distress.

Research that illustrates ethical issues

Milgram (1963): obedience and authority

Milgram’s study is the classic example of ethical controversy. Forty male participants believed they were giving increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner in a Yale laboratory. The learner was actually a confederate.

Ethical problems included:

• deception, because participants believed the shocks were real
• psychological harm, because many showed signs of extreme tension
• right to withdraw, because the prods made withdrawal difficult
• informed consent, because participants did not know the true nature of the study

However, Milgram did debrief participants and argued the findings were socially valuable.

Bocchiaro et al. (2012): whistle-blowing and modern ethics

Bocchiaro et al. studied obedience and disobedience in a more ethically regulated way. Participants were asked to write a statement supporting a supposedly unethical sensory deprivation study, but they could also anonymously report the researcher.

This still involved deception, but it had stronger safeguards than Milgram. It shows how modern research can investigate difficult social behaviour while reducing participant risk.

Bandura et al. (1961): children and aggression

Bandura’s Bobo doll study raises ethical concerns because children observed aggressive adult models and then had their aggression measured. The issue is not just immediate distress, but whether the study encouraged aggressive behaviour.

This is especially important because children are a vulnerable group, meaning they may need extra protection and may not fully understand consent.

Loftus and Palmer (1974): memory and leading questions

Loftus and Palmer used film clips of car accidents and misleading questions. The ethical risk was relatively mild compared with Milgram, but there was still deception, especially in the broken glass condition. The study is often judged more ethically acceptable because the likely harm was low and the findings were useful for eyewitness testimony.

Applications of ethical positions

Ethical considerations affect real research design. Psychologists may use:

• consent forms and participant information sheets
• debrief scripts
• anonymised participant numbers instead of names
• ethics committees or review boards
• risk assessments
• safeguarding procedures for children or clinical groups
• data protection procedures

Ethics also applies to how findings are reported. Under integrity, researchers should choose appropriate statistics and graphs rather than exaggerating results.

For OCR research methods, this links to:

• levels of measurement: nominal, ordinal and interval data
• descriptive statistics: mode, median, mean, range, variance, standard deviation, ratios, percentages and fractions
• graphs: bar charts, histograms, line graphs, pie charts and scatter diagrams
• non-parametric tests: Mann-Whitney U for two independent groups, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks for related conditions, Chi-square for nominal frequencies, Binomial Sign test for related directional changes, and Spearman’s Rho for correlations
• parametric test criteria: interval-level data, roughly normal distribution, similar variance across conditions and no serious outliers
• significance: researchers use probability, significance levels such as 5%, and statistical tables of critical values to judge whether results are likely due to chance
• errors: a Type I error is a false positive; a Type II error is a false negative

You may see symbols such as =, <, <<, >>, >, ∞ and ~ in research reporting. Ethically, the key point is that symbols and statistics must be used honestly, not to make weak evidence look stronger than it is.

Similarities and differences with other debates

Ethics and usefulness

Ethics is closely linked to usefulness. A study may be ethically questionable but highly useful, such as Milgram (1963). However, usefulness alone does not make research ethical.

Ethics and socially sensitive research

Socially sensitive research is research that may affect particular groups or society, for example by influencing policy, stereotypes or public attitudes. Ethics focuses mainly on how participants are treated during research; socially sensitive research also considers wider consequences after publication.

Ethics and psychology as a science

Scientific control can create ethical tension. Laboratory studies may use deception to reduce demand characteristics, but deception can reduce informed consent. Ethical rules may limit what can be studied, but they also improve public trust in psychology.

Ethics and ethnocentrism

Ethical principles such as individual consent may reflect Western values about autonomy. In some cultures, community or family consent may also matter. This does not mean “anything goes”; it means psychologists should apply ethical principles sensitively across cultures.

Evaluating the ethical considerations debate

A major strength of ethical regulation is that it protects participants and improves trust in psychology. Without ethical standards, people may refuse to take part or may see psychology as manipulative.

Another strength is that ethics encourages better research design. If researchers must justify deception or harm, they are pushed to create safer, clearer and more responsible procedures.

However, ethical decisions can be subjective. One ethics committee may approve a study that another would reject. Cost-benefit judgements depend on how much value researchers think the findings have.

A further limitation is that strict ethics can reduce ecological validity. If participants are fully informed about every aim, they may behave unnaturally. This is why deception is sometimes defended, especially in social psychology.