心理学与生活-第106章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


4。　Zimbardo’s　prison　simulation。　
Subjects　

15…25　students　are　ideal。　Four　are　selected　to　act　as　university　research　professors；　each　advocating　
approval　of　his　or　her　proposal。　The　rest　of　the　class　serves　as　the　IRB　（see　variations　for　a　possible　third　role　
for　2　impression　management　observers）。　

Time　Required　for　Role…Playing　

20…45　minutes　for　the　presentation；　questioning　and　evaluation　of　the　four　proposals　（5…15　minutes　for　each　
depending　on　the　intensity　and　detail　of　the　role…playing）。　

Time　Required　for　Discussion　

10…20　minutes。　

Method　

1。　Decide　which　of　the　research　proposals　will　be　presented　to　the　class　IRB；　depending　on　your　time　
schedule。　You　may　want　to　add　one　or　more　of　your　own　choosing　or　use　only　a　few　of　ours。　
2。　Preselect　the　research　investigators　who　will　argue　for　their　proposals；　either　assigning　them　the　
previous　week　to　bee　familiarized　with　the　specific　proposals　or　choosing　students　who　arrive　
early　to　the　section。　In　a　large　class；　you　may　want　to　have　pairs　of　students　be　a　research　team。　
3。　Explain　the　role…playing　scenario。　The　researchers；　eager　to　begin　their　research　as　soon　as　possible　
with　minimal　modifications；　have　submitted　a　proposal　for　the　experiment　to　the　human　subjects　
mittee　for　review。　They　have　received　a　reply　from　the　mittee　stating　that　there　are　some　
ethical　（and　possibly　other）　questions　about　the　study；　and　that　they　have　been　requested　to　appear　
before　the　mittee　to　defend　their　proposal　and　presentation　strategy。　They　should　attempt　to　
defend　it　as　best　they　can；　given　the　material。　You　might　even　inform　them　that　their　entire　career　
and　everything　they’ve　worked　for　depends　on　getting　this　study　through　the　mittee　（with　
reasonable　modifications）。　
4。　The　IRB　should　read　the　study；　each　member　listing　questions　to　raise。　You　may　want　to　alert　them　
to　some　specific　concerns　they　might　miss。　Appoint　a　chairperson　to　coordinate　the　session。　With　a　
large　class　you　might　save　time　with　two　IRBs；　the　second　one　preparing　the　materials　for　Proposals　
427　


2　and　4　while　the　first　does　1　and　3。　

5。　The　first　experimenters　are　invited　to　present　the　reasons　for　seeking　approval　of　their　research。　
Then　the　mittee　members　raise　their　concerns　and　objections。　The　experimenters　have　a　chance　
to　reply；　after　which　a　group　IRB　decision　is　made。　
6。　Follow　the　same　procedure　for　each　additional　proposal。　
7。　Throughout　the　section；　you　may　act　as　moderator　（or　devil’s　advocate）　to　lend　support　to　one　side　
or　the　other　if　the　discussion　gets　bogged　down　or　is　missing　important　points。　
PITFALLS　TO　AVOID　

1。　Be　sure　to　create　a　present…time　perspective　of　this　event　unfolding　now　in　order　to　maximize　
personal　involvement。　
2。　Set　time　limits　for　review　of　each　proposal；　if　heated　discussion　arises；　it　is　easy　to　run　overtime。　
3。　Establish　the　important　role　of　the　IRB　and　possible　student　representation　on　it；　in　order　for　the　
class　members　to　take　their　roles　seriously。　
DATA　ANALYSIS　AND　INTERPRETATION　

1。　What　is　the　overall　verdict　of　the　mittee　on　the　studies　in　question？　What　are　the　individual　
verdicts？　Are　there　any　studies　that　split　the　mittee　or　caused　a　stalemate？　
2。　Analyze　and　summarize　specific　features　of　proposals　that　were　found　objectionable。　
3。　Review　specific　arguments　that　were　effective　or　ineffective　in　persuading　the　IRB　to　approve　the　
research。　
4。　Were　there　stylistic　or　content　features　of　these　proposals　that　made　some　more　likely　to　be　accepted　
than　others；　for　example；　reference　to　prior　research；　explicit　mention　of　benefits　of　research；　basic　
versus　applied　orientation；　rhetoric；　etc。？　
DISCUSSION；　EXTENSIONS；　AND　EXPERIMENTAL　VARIATIONS　

1。　Does　the　concern　of　an　IRB　unnecessarily　limit　scientific　research？　What　are　the　drawbacks　to　such　
a　system　of　review？　
2。　What　should　the　position　be　of　an　IRB　at　your　school；　i。e。；　what　constituencies　should　be　
represented？　
3。　How　might　the　status　of　the　researcher　influence　the　IRB；　and　how　can　this　possible　bias　be　
handled？　
4。　Can　there　ever　be　true　informed　consent　for　populations　in　coercive　environments　such　as　prisons　
or　for　poor　people　who　need　the　money　they　get　for　participating　in　the　research？　
5。　How　can　research　be　conducted　to　demonstrate　that　deception　has　negative　consequences　if　it　is　
judged　unethical　to　deceive　subjects？　
6。　What　are　the　ethical　issues　in　the　treatment　of　animal　subjects？　（Perhaps　obtain　guidelines　for　such　
research　from　your　school。）　
7。　Make　connections　with　previous　sections：　
。　How　ethical　was　the　section　on　guilt；　in　which　one　volunteer　was　instructed　to　perform　
actions　outside　the　classroom　so　that　he　would　“feel”　like　a　criminal？　
。　Is　suicide　intervention　ethical？　Should　people　be　allowed　to　freely　make　their　own　decision　
428　

in　this　matter？　What　are　the　limits　and　safeguards　on　what　can　be　done　under　the　name　of　
“education”　or　“therapy”　that　is　not　“research”？　

。　Relate　this　section　to　the　one　on　impression　management　by　analyzing　how　the　
experimenters　tried　to　manage　favorable　impressions。　Have　two　student　observers　code　the　
researchers’　behavior　and　the　confirmatory　or　disconfirmatory　questions　of　the　mittee。　
8。　Discuss　the　issue　of　living　in　an　“experimenting　society；”　in　which　we　assume　that　adequate　
research　will　be　conducted　before　new　drugs　are　put　on　the　market　or　we　are　exposed　to　certain　
products。　Somewhere　in　that　process；　humans　or　animals　were　subjects　in　that　research　related　to　
pain；　disease；　stress；　and　other　noxious　experiences。　
9。　Raise　the　problems　with　“debriefing”　subjects　after　an　allowable　deception　has　been　conducted　in　
an　experiment。　Can　people　really　be　returned　to　the　condition　they　were　in　before　experiencing　an　
experimental　treatment；　given　that　it　was　intense　enough　to　influence　their　behavior？　
10。　Consider　the　public’s　positive　reaction　to　“Candid　Camera”　deception　episodes。　What　does　that　
say　about　us？　
ADDITIONAL　RESOURCES　

Baumrind；　D。　（1964）。　Some　thoughts　on　ethical　issues　in　psychology。　American　Psychologist；　19；　421…423。　

Kom　J。　H。　（1984）。　Coverage　of　research　ethics　in　introductory　and　social　psychology　tests。　Teaching　of　
Psychology；　11；　146…149。　

Steininger；　M。；　Newell；　J。　D。；　&　Garcia；　L。　（1984）。　Ethical　issues　in　psychology。　Homewood；　IL：　Dorsey　Press。　

Zimbardo；　P。　G。　（1973）。　On　the　ethics　of　intervention　in　human　psychological　research：　With　special　
reference　to　the　Stanford　prison　experiment。　Cognition；　2；　243…256。　

One　survey　of　IRB　actions　presents　the　following　data；　which　the　class　might　find　useful。　The　data　are　
for　all　types　of　institutions—universities；　medical　school；　hospitals　and　others　（2389　were　surveyed）。　

IRB　Actions　Percent　
Board　modified　33　
Modified　after　an　informal　discussion　with　IRB　members　7　
More　information　requested　10　
No　change　44　
No　data　available　6　
Total：　100　

Here　is　a　description　of　the　infamous　U。S。　Public　Health　Service　study　of　syphilis；　in　which　the　control　
group　received　a　placebo—and　most　died。　It　supports　arguments　for　strong　IRBs。　

The　study　was　started　in　1932　by　the　service’s　venereal　disease　section。　It　involved　625　black　men；　mostly　
poor　and　uneducated；　from　the　county　surrounding　Tuskegee；　Alabama；　which　then　had　the　highest　
syphilis　rate　in　the　nation。　Two　hundred　of　the　men　did　not　have　syphilis　and　served　as　a　control　group　for　
parison　purposes；　425　had　latent　（and　therefore　nonmunicable）　syphilis　and　received　little　if　any　
treatment　for　it。　As　an　incentive　to　participate　in　the　study；　they　were　offered　free　treatment　for　any　other　

429　

illnesses；　free　hot　lunches；　and　free　burial　after　autopsies　were　performed。　

At　the　time　the　test　began；　treatment　for　syphilis　was　uncertain　at　best　and　involved　a　lifelong　series　of　risky　
injections　of　such　toxic　substances　as　bismuth；　arsenic；　and　mercury。　However；　in　the　years　following　
World　War　II；　the　PHS’s　test　became　a　matter　of　medical　morality。　Penicillin　had　been　found　almost　totally　
effective　against　syphilis；　and　by　war’s　end　it　had　bee　generally　available。　Nevertheless；　the　PHS　did　
not　use　the　drug　on　those　participating　in　the　study　unless　the　patient　asked　for　it。　

Recent　reviews　of　125　cases　by　the　PHS’s　Center　for　Disease　Control　in　Atlanta　found　that　half　had　
syphilitic　heart　valve　damage。　Twenty…eight　had　died　of　cardiovascular　or　central　nervous　system　problems　
that　were　plications　of　syphilis。　

The　study’s　findings　on　the　effects　of　untreated　syphilis　have　been　reported　periodically　in　medical　journals　
for　years。　It　was　not　until　1972；　however；　that　an　Associated　Press　correspondent　noticed　and　reported　that　
the　lack　of　treatment　was　intentional。　Senator　William　Proxmire　of　Wisconsin；　a　member　of　the　
submittee　that　oversees　PHS’s　budget；　called　the　study　“a　moral　and　ethical　nightmare”　and　an　
investigation　soon　followed。　

The　probe　did　not　help　much；　for　the　damage　had　already　been　done。　The　officials　responsible　for　the　study　
have　long　since　retired。　Present　CDC　officials　agree　that　such　a　study　could　not　be　conducted　today。　
Unfortunately；　their　solicitude　is　small　consolation　for　the　74　of　the　original　425　syphilitics　still　surviving。　
The　agency　is　treating　them　for　whatever　other　diseases　or　physical　problems　they　might　have；　but　it　can　do　
little　for　their　syphilis。　The　average　age　of　the　survivors　is　74；　and　the　massive　penicillin　therapy　necessary　
to　arrest　their　long…ignored　affliction　could　do　more　harm　than　good。　

For　them；　the　PHS　reversal　has　e　too　late。　But　the　notoriety　of　this　study　has　done　much　to　raise　the　
consciousness　of　researchers　and　research　service　administrators　and　legislators。　

PROPOSAL　1　

Title：　Resolution　of　Social　Conflicts　

Department：。　Social　Anthropology　

Proposal：　Many　groups　face　social　conflicts　that；　without　adequate　means　of　resolution；　erupt　into　group　
hostility　and　destructive　behavior。　On　the　basis　of　previous　research　by　M。　Sherif；　we　believe　that　the　critical　
variable　in　the　conflict　resolution　process　is　the　availability　of　superordinate　goals；　that　is；　mon　goals　or　
objectives　that　can　be　fulfilled　only　via　cooperative　rather　than　petitive　strategies。　

Subjects　will　be　housed　in　an　environment　that　is　new　to　them　（a　summer　camp）　with　others　who　are　
strangers。　This　is　to　control　for　extraneous　influences　and　prior　group　formation。　The　subjects　will　be　
divided　into　two　groups；　each　of　which　will　be　housed　separately；　and　led　by　a　team　of　adult　supervisor…
observers。　There　will　be　four　phases　to　our　study：　（1）　development　of　strong　within…group　cohesion　and　
solidarity　in　each　of　the　two　camp　groups；　（2）　creation　of　the　opportunity　for　conflict　between　the　two　
groups；　（3）　introduction　of　a　mon　problem　（e。g。；　breakdown　in　water　supply　to　the　camp）　facing　both　
groups；　and　（4）　observation　of　strategies　of　resolution。　

The　duration　of　each　phase　will　be：　Phase　1…five　days；　Phase　2…three　days；　Phrase　3…one　day；　Phase　4…five　
days—a　total　of　two　weeks。　

Trained　observers　will　record　all　interactions　that　occur　during　meals；　sports；　recreation；　and　at　other　times。　

Subjects：