Ethical Considerations in Social Psychological Research: Is the Bogus Pipeline a Special Case?

The ethics of using deception in research are discussed, and Aguinis and Handelsman's (1997) arguments that research using the bogus pipeline (BPL), in particular, is unethical are reviewed and critiqued. Stances that view any deception research as unethical may be reasonable, and lead to the conclusion that BPL research is unethical. However, if the position taken is that deception research may be ethically acceptable, then there is no basis for concluding that BPL research is intrinsically unethical. The same considerations that are taken into account when deciding whether any deception in research is ethical apply to decisions about the ethical appropriateness of using the BPL.     

Ethical issues in the use of the bogus pipeline

This article addresses the ethics of utilizing the bogus pipeline (BPL) procedure in social psychological research. A debate is presented between 2 positions: One challenges the use of the BPL based on ethical principles, and the other confronts these challenges. The debate addresses the void in previous BPL literature regarding concerns about the ethics of using this technique, and raises awareness about potential ethical dilemmas faced by BPL users. The BPL is discussed from utilitarian and deontological ethical perspectives.     

Conditions Under Which a Bogus Pipeline Procedure Enhances the Validity of Self-Reported Cigarette Smoking: A Meta-Analytic Review1

A meta-analysis was conducted to test whether the use of self-report measures within the bogus pipeline (BPL) paradigm yields more valid responses than the use of self-report measures alone for assessing cigarette smoking behavior. The meta-analytic results indicate that, overall, a BPL condition resulted in a larger proportion of subjects reporting that they are frequent smokers, as compared to a self-report measure only (no pipeline) condition. Tests of categorical models indicate that the enhanced validity of self-reports within the BPL paradigm is moderated by the following variables: (a) type of BPL presentation employed, (b) type of self-report measure to which the BPL technique is compared, and (c) whether most participants are smokers (as indicated by a biochemical marker).     

Enhancing the Validity of Self-Reported Alcohol and Marijuana Consumption Using a Bogus Pipeline Procedure: A Meta-Analytic Review

Two separate meta-analyses were conducted to test whether the use of self-report measures within the bogus pipeline (BPL) paradigm yields more valid responses than the use of self-report measures alone for assessing alcohol and marijuana consumption. Weighted mean effect sizes (ds) of 0.01 and -0.12 were obtained for studies using alcohol and marijuana self-reports, respectively. Chi-square tests based on Ns of 1,892 for the alcohol sample and 1,425 for the marijuana sample indicated homogeneity of effect sizes for both databases. Explanations for why a BPL procedure does not improve the validity of self-reported alcohol and marijuana consumption are provided. In addition, alternative methods that may enhance the validity of alcohol and marijuana self-reports are discussed.     

The need to expand the horizons of the practical aspects of memory movement

The Practical Aspects of Memory movement began as a forum for applied memory research and as and acid test for basic memory theory. Contrary to initial expectations, the movement has attracted far fewer applied researchers and, instead, has primarily drawn researchers concerned with the ecological validity of basic research. The purpose of this special issue is to demonstrate to practical memory researchers the rewards of giving more consideration to applied memory research in government, industry, education, and consulting. This article explains that the Practical Aspects of Memory movement needs to give more consideration to applied research that does not emanate from basic theory, because such research may identify phenomena that basic research should investigate. It is argued here that an examination of the potential contributions of applied memory research will facilitate communication among basic, ecological, and applied researchers, thereby strengthening the movement's ability to contribute to the solution of societal problems.     

Bringing the Organization into Organizational Research: An Examination of Academic Research Inside Organizations

One common suggestion for reducing the gap between research and practice is for academics to conduct more of their research in real organizational settings. However, there is considerable skepticism among academics about the willingness of organizations to open their doors to researchers, and among both academics and practitioners about the potential value of doing so. The present study examines how 141 successful academic research projects in real organizations proceeded from start to finish. Our results suggest that organizations may be more open to academic research than is commonly believed, and that most researchers experience few problems with participating organizations. On the other hand, most of the examined projects were not heavily collaborative, and only half of the researchers maintained organizational contact after the research was completed. Based on our findings, we offer suggestions for researchers wishing to do organizational research as well as for their organizational partners.     

Health Research in Complex Emergencies: A Humanitarian Imperative

Health researchers, research trainees, and ethics reviewers should be prepared for the special application of research ethics within complex humanitarian emergencies. This paper argues that as a precursor to published ethical guidelines for conducting research in complex emergencies, researchers and research ethics committees should observe the following primary ethical considerations: (1) the research is not at the expense of humanitarian action; (2) the research is justified in that it is needs-driven and relevant to the affected populations; and (3) the research does not compromise the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence. These primary considerations are in harmony with the humanitarian goals of saving lives, alleviating suffering, and témoignage. Furthermore, there is an important role for research in supporting humanitarian action, and the extreme vulnerability of research participants in complex emergencies demands intense research ethics scrutiny. It is important to discern which ethical considerations are essential, and which are merely desirable, as excessive research ethics requirements may impede life-saving research.     

Role of Researchers in the Ethical Conduct of Research: A Discourse Analysis From Different Stakeholder Perspectives

The ethical conduct of research rests largely on researchers, and as such, an understanding of how they perceive and enact their role in research is paramount. However, the literature around ethics and research mostly focuses on researchers’ perception of Research Ethics Boards (REB; also known as Institutional Review Boards) roles and functions. To fill that gap, we analyzed the perceptions of researchers, REB members, and influential parties (n = 40) about researchers’ role in the ethical conduct of research through discourse analysis. Three discourses emerged: researchers as reflective practitioners, protectors of participants, and technicians. Understanding the commonalities and differences among the discourses may foster a shared and compelling institutional research culture.     

“Just Carbon”: Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors

Graphene is a nanomaterial with many promising and innovative applications, yet early studies indicate that graphene may pose risks to humans and the environment. According to ideas of responsible research and innovation, all relevant actors should strive to reduce risks related to technological innovations. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated the idea of graphene as a risk (or not) held by two types of key actors: graphene researchers and innovation advisors at universities, where the latter are facilitating the movement of graphene from the laboratory to the marketplace. The most common idea found is that graphene is not a risk due to, e.g., low toxicity, low amounts produced/used, and its similarity to harmless materials (being “just carbon”). However, some researchers and advisors also say that graphene is a risk, e.g., under certain conditions or due to a lack of risk-related information. We explain the co-existence of these seemingly contradictory ideas through (1) the semantic ambiguity of the word risk and (2) a risk/no-risk rhetoric, where risks are mentioned rhetorically only to be disregarded as manageable or negligible. We suggest that some of the ideas held by the researchers and innovation advisors constitute a challenge to responsible research and innovation regarding graphene. At the same time, we acknowledge the dilemma that the discourse of responsible innovation creates for the actors: denying graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to a lack of risk awareness, while affirming graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to their everyday engagement in graphene development. We therefore recommend more research into what researchers and innovation advisors should do in practice in order to qualify as responsible.     

Seeing the glass half full: A review of the causes and consequences of optimism

During the past few decades, the psychological trait of optimism has garnered an increasing amount of interest from scientists, and numerous studies have now shown that optimism is associated with important benefits. The present review summarizes the main findings from this body of research. We begin by describing the two main ways in which researchers have defined and operationalized optimism, as “optimistic explanatory style” and as “dispositional optimism”. Second, we provide an overview of the various studies documenting the benefits of optimism. Optimism indeed appears to be associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, better health, and more success. In addition, we describe some of the ongoing controversies in this area of research. Third, we summarize what researchers currently know about the causes of optimism, and how optimism can be fostered in adults as well as in youth. Finally, the present review highlights the adaptive nature of optimism, while recognizing that being optimistic under all circumstances may not always be best. Cultivating flexible and realistic optimism may therefore be most advantageous. We conclude by pointing out important areas of research for the future. These include continuing the search for the biological and brain substrates of optimism, and investigating the psychological and physiological benefits of adopting a flexible (as opposed to rigid) optimistic outlook on life.     

Examining arguments against quantitative research: “Case studies” illustrating the challenge of finding a sound philosophical basis for a human sciences approach to psychology

This article offers a close examination of critiques of quantitative research by Michell, 2011, Marecek, 2011, and Morawski (2011). One goal is to show that these three critics actually share with most mainstream quantitative researchers commitments to the Cartesian framework, even though this is not obvious because Cartesianism can appear in different guises. As a result of these commitments, the three theorists advance criticisms of mainstream quantitative research that fail to identify its key failings, put forward flawed views about how we should conduct research, and offer misguided criticisms of an approach I advocate called explicitly interpretive quantitative research. Another goal is to use the examination of the three critiques as a vehicle for clarifying the participatory perspective, a philosophical viewpoint that departs from the Cartesian framework. With regard to research methodology, the participatory perspective provides the basis for explicitly interpretive quantitative research, leads to ideas about changes we should make in how we conduct qualitative research, and treats quantitative and qualitative research as fundamentally similar because both should be pursued as interpretive modes of inquiry. I suggest that my analyses of the three critiques of quantitative research – or “case studies,” as I call these analyses – also may prove useful to researchers and theorists who want to develop a human sciences approach to other issues besides research methodology by helping them (1) recognize when lines of thinking that seem to depart from the mainstream actually represent variants of Cartesianism, and (2) consider what the participatory perspective might have to offer if they were to use it as the philosophical basis for their efforts.     

Desequens: An R package for the variance decomposition of sequential processes

Recently, Kuppens, Van Mechelen, and Rijmen (2008) developed a method that allows researchers to examine and disentangle the contributions of the different possible sources of variability in sequential processes that underlie psychological outcomes or behaviors. Although this method may prove valuable for many research domains in the social sciences, its use may be limited by its statistical complexity and the effort and programming skills required. We present an R package, called Desequens, intended to make this method easily accessible to social science researchers. The tool does not require any knowledge of R, so that R laymen can easily apply the method to their data as well. We demonstrate the use of Desequens by means of a didactic example.     

Possible research area bias in the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) draft journal rankings

An analysis of the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) draft rankings of 661 psychology journals points to systematic differences between research areas in the distribution of ranks. Journals in experimental, biological and neuroscientific psychology obtained higher mean ranks, consistent with a tendency for “hard‐science” areas to have higher bibliometric journal impact. The ERA will influence the distribution of resources and rewards within psychology and create powerful incentives for institutions and researchers, so differences in ranks across research areas may alter the shape of the discipline. Although they do not necessarily imply bias, such differences raise the possibility that psychology researchers will not operate on a level playing field.     

A Comparative Investigation of Rotation Criteria Within Exploratory Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a commonly used statistical technique for examining the relationships between variables (e.g., items) and the factors (e.g., latent traits) they depict. There are several decisions that must be made when using EFA, with one of the more important being choice of the rotation criterion. This selection can be arduous given the numerous rotation criteria available and the lack of research/literature that compares their function and utility. Historically, researchers have chosen rotation criteria based on whether or not factors are correlated and have failed to consider other important aspects of their data. This study reviews several rotation criteria, demonstrates how they may perform with different factor pattern structures, and highlights for researchers subtle but important differences between each rotation criterion. The choice of rotation criterion is critical to ensure researchers make informed decisions as to when different rotation criteria may or may not be appropriate. The results suggest that depending on the rotation criterion selected and the complexity of the factor pattern matrix, the interpretation of the interfactor correlations and factor pattern loadings can vary substantially. Implications and future directions are discussed.     

In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities

Published data and studies on research misconduct, which focuses on researchers in Malaysia, is still lacking, therefore, we decided that this was an area for investigation. This study provides qualitative results for the examined issues through series of in-depth interviews with 21 researchers and lecturers in various universities in Malaysia. The aims of this study were to investigate the researchers’ opinions and perceptions regarding what they considered to be research misconduct, their experience with such misconduct, and the factors that contribute to research misconduct. Our findings suggest that the most common research misconducts that are currently being witnessed in Malaysian universities are plagiarism and authorship disputes, however, researchers seldom report incidents of research misconduct because it takes too much time, effort and work to report them, and some are just afraid of repercussions when they do report it. This suggests possible loopholes in the monitoring system, which may allow some researchers to bypass it and engage in misconduct. This study also highlights the structural and individual factors as the most influential factors when it comes to research misconduct besides organizational, situational and cultural factors. Finally, this study highlights the concerns of all participants regarding the ‘publish or perish’ pressure that they believe would lead to a hostile working environment, thus enhancing research misconduct, as researchers tend to think about their own performance rather than that of whole team or faculty. Consequently this weakens the interpersonal relationships among researchers, which may compromise the teaching and supervision of junior researchers and research students.     

Optimizing the scientific study of suicide with open and transparent research practices

Suicide research is vitally important, yet—like psychology research more broadly—faces methodological challenges. In recent years, researchers have raised concerns about standard practices in psychological research, concerns that apply to suicide research and raise questions about its robustness and validity. In the present paper, we review these concerns and the corresponding solutions put forth by the “open science” community. These include using open science platforms, pre‐registering studies, ensuring reproducible analyses, using high‐powered studies, ensuring open access to research materials and products, and conducting replication studies. We build upon existing guides, address specific obstacles faced by suicide researchers, and offer a clear set of recommended practices for suicide researchers. In particular, we consider challenges that suicide researchers may face in seeking to adopt “open science” practices (e.g., prioritizing large samples) and suggest possible strategies that the field may use in order to ensure robust and transparent research, despite these challenges.     

Why and how we should care about the General Data Protection Regulation

Abstract

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the new European Union-wide (EU) law on data protection, which is a great step towards more comprehensive and more far-reaching protection of individuals' personal data. In this editorial, we describe why and how we – as researchers within the field of health psychology – should care about the GDPR. In the first part, we explain when the GDPR is applicable, who is accountable for data protection, and what is covered by the notions of personal data and processing. In the second part, we explain aspects of the GDPR that are relevant for researchers within the field of health psychology (e.g., obtaining informed consent, data minimisation, and open science). We focus on questions that researchers may ask themselves in their daily practice. Compliance with the GDPR requires adopting research practices (e.g., data minimisation and anonymization procedures) that are not yet commonly used, but serve the fundamental right to protection of personal data of study participants.