american psychological association on research ethics

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

APA Code of Ethics: Principles, Purpose, and Guidelines

What to know about the APA's ethical codes that psychologists follow

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Daniel B. Block, MD, is an award-winning, board-certified psychiatrist who operates a private practice in Pennsylvania.

Mediaphotos / Getty Images

• What and Who the Code of Ethics Is For?
• The 5 Ethical Principles
• The 10 Standards
• What Happens If a Therapist Violates the APA's Ethical Codes?
• How Can I Report a Therapist?

Ethical Considerations

The APA Code of Ethics guides professionals working in psychology so that they're better equipped with the knowledge of what to do when they encounter some moral or ethical dilemma. Some of these are principles or values that psychologists should aspire to uphold. In other cases, the APA outlines standards that are enforceable expectations.

Ethics are an important concern in psychology, particularly regarding therapy and research. Working with patients and conducting psychological research can pose various ethical and moral issues that must be addressed.

Understanding the APA Code of Ethics

The American Psychological Association (APA) publishes the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct which outlines aspirational principles as well as enforceable standards that psychologists should use when making decisions.

In 1948, APA president Nicholas Hobbs said, "[The APA Code of Ethics] should be of palpable aid to the ethical psychologist in making daily decisions."

In other words, these ethical codes are meant to guide mental health professionals in making the best ethical decisions on a regular basis.

When Did the APA Publish Its Code of Ethics?

The APA first published its ethics code in 1953 and has been continuously evolving the code ever since.

What's in the APA's Code of Ethics?

The APA code of ethics is composed of key principles and ethical standards:

• Principles : The principles are intended as a guide to help inspire psychologists as they work in their profession, whether they are working in mental health, in research , or in business.
• Standards : The standards outline expectations of conduct. If any of these are violated, it can result in professional and legal ramifications.

Who Is the APA Code of Ethics For?

The code of ethics applies only to work-related, professional activities including research, teaching, counseling , psychotherapy, and consulting. Private conduct is not subject to scrutiny by the APA's ethics committee.

APA's Ethical Codes: The Five Ethical Principles

Not all ethical issues are clear-cut, but the APA strives to offer psychologists guiding principles to help them make sound ethical choices within their profession.

The APA Code of Ethics' Five Principles

• Principle A : Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
• Principle B : Fidelity and Responsibility
• Principle C : Integrity
• Principle D : Justice
• Principle E : Respect for People's Rights and Dignity

Principle A: Beneficence and Non-Maleficence

The first principle of the APA ethics code states that psychologists should strive to protect the rights and welfare of those with whom they work professionally . This includes the clients they see in clinical practice, animals that are involved in research and experiments , and anyone else with whom they engage in professional interaction.

This principle encourages psychologists to strive to eliminate biases , affiliations, and prejudices that might influence their work. This includes acting independently in research and not allowing affiliations or sponsorships to influence results.

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility

Principle B states that psychologists have a moral responsibility to help ensure that others working in their profession also uphold high ethical standards . This principle suggests that psychologists should participate in activities that enhance the ethical compliance and conduct of their colleagues.

Serving as a mentor, taking part in peer review, and pointing out ethical concerns or misconduct are examples of how this principle might be put into action. Psychologists are also encouraged to donate some of their time to the betterment of the community.

Principle C: Integrity

This principle states that, in research and practice, psychologists should never attempt to deceive or misrepresent . For instance, in research, deception can involve fabricating or manipulating results in some way to achieve desired outcomes. Psychologists should also strive for transparency and honesty in their practice.

Principle D: Justice

The principle of justice says that mental health professionals have a responsibility to be fair and impartial. It also states that people have a right to access and benefit from advances that have been made in the field of psychology. It is important for psychologists to treat people equally.

Psychologists should also always practice within their area of expertise and also be aware of their level of competence and limitations.

Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity

Principle E states that psychologists should respect the right to dignity, privacy, and confidentiality of those they work with professionally . They should also strive to minimize their own biases as well as be aware of issues related to diversity and the concerns of particular populations.

For example, people may have specific concerns related to their age, socioeconomic status, race , gender, religion, ethnicity, or disability.

The APA Code of Ethics' Standards

The 10 standards found in the APA ethics code are enforceable rules of conduct for psychologists working in clinical practice and academia.

The 10 Standards Found in the APA Code of Ethics

• Resolving Ethical Issues
• Human Relations
• Privacy and Confidentiality
• Advertising and Other Public Statements
• Record Keeping and Fees
• Education and Training
• Research and Publication

These standards tend to be broad in order to help guide the behavior of psychologists across a wide variety of domains and situations.

They apply to areas such as education, therapy, advertising, privacy, research, and publication.

1: Resolving Ethical Issues

This standard of the APA ethics code provides information about what psychologists should do to resolve ethical situations they may encounter in their work. This includes advice for what researchers should do when their work is misrepresented and when to report ethical violations.

2: Competence

It is important that psychologists practice within their area of expertise. When treating clients or working with the public, psychologists must make it clear what they are trained to do as well as what they are not trained to do.

An Exception to This Standard

This standard stipulates that in an emergency situation, professionals may provide services even if it falls outside the scope of their practice in order to ensure that access to services is provided.

3: Human Relations

Psychologists frequently work with a team of other mental health professionals. This standard of the ethics code is designed to guide psychologists in their interactions with others in the field.

This includes guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment, and discrimination, avoiding harm during treatment and avoiding exploitative relationships (such as a sexual relationship with a student or subordinate).

4: Privacy and Confidentiality

This standard outlines psychologists’ responsibilities with regard to maintaining patient confidentiality . Psychologists are obligated to take reasonable precautions to keep client information private.

However, the APA also notes that there are limitations to confidentiality. Sometimes psychologists need to disclose information about their patients in order to consult with other mental health professionals, for example.

While there are cases where information is divulged, psychologists must strive to minimize these intrusions on privacy and confidentiality.

5: Advertising and Other Public Statements

Psychologists who advertise their services must ensure that they accurately depict their training, experience, and expertise. They also need to avoid marketing statements that are deceptive or false.

This also applies to how psychologists are portrayed by the media when providing their expertise or opinion in articles, blogs, books, or television programs.

When presenting at conferences or giving workshops, psychologists should also ensure that the brochures and other marketing materials for the event accurately depict what the event will cover.

6: Record Keeping and Fees

Maintaining accurate records is an important part of a psychologist’s work, whether the individual is working in research or with patients. Patient records include case notes and other diagnostic assessments used in the course of treatment.

In terms of research, record-keeping involves detailing how studies were performed and the procedures that were used. This allows other researchers to assess the research and ensures that the study can be replicated.

7: Education and Training

This standard focuses on expectations for behavior when psychologists are teaching or training students.

When creating courses and programs to train other psychologists and mental health professionals , current and accurate evidence-based research should be used.

This standard also states that faculty members are not allowed to provide psychotherapy services to their students.

8: Research and Publication

This standard focuses on ethical considerations when conducting research and publishing results .

For example, the APA states that psychologists must obtain approval from the institution that is carrying out the research, present information about the purpose of the study to participants, and inform participants about the potential risks of taking part in the research.

9: Assessment

Psychologists should obtain informed consent before administering assessments. Assessments should be used to support a psychologist’s professional opinion, but psychologists should also understand the limitations of these tools. They should also take steps to ensure the privacy of those who have taken assessments.

10: Therapy

This standard outlines professional expectations within the context of providing therapy. Areas that are addressed include the importance of obtaining informed consent and explaining the treatment process to clients.

Confidentiality is addressed, as well as some of the limitations to confidentiality, such as when a client poses an immediate danger to himself or others.

Minimizing harm, avoiding sexual relationships with clients, and continuation of care are other areas that are addressed by this standard.

For example, if a psychologist must stop providing services to a client for some reason, psychologists are expected to prepare clients for the change and help locate alternative services.

What Happens If a Therapist Violates the APA's Ethical Codes?

After a report of unethical conduct is received, the APA may censure or reprimand the psychologist, or the individual may have his or her APA membership revoked. Complaints may also be referred to others, including state professional licensing boards.

State psychological associations, professional groups, licensing boards, and government agencies may also choose to impose penalties against the psychologist.

Health insurance agencies and state and federal payers of health insurance claims may also pursue action against professionals for ethical violations related to treatment, billing, or fraud.

Those affected by ethical violations may also opt to seek monetary damages in civil courts.

Illegal activity may be prosecuted in criminal courts. If this results in a felony conviction, the APA may take further actions including suspension or expulsion from state psychological associations and the suspension or loss of the psychologist's license to practice.

How Can I Report a Therapist for Unethical Behavior?

While unfortunate, there are instances in which a therapist may commit an ethical violation. If you would like to file a complaint against a therapist, you can do so by contacting your state's psychologist licensing board.

How to Find Your State's Psychologist Board

Here is a list of the U.S. psychology boards . Choose your state and refer to the contact information provided.

Because psychologists often deal with extremely sensitive or volatile situations, ethical concerns can play a big role in professional life.

The most significant ethical issues include the following:

• Client Welfare : Due to the role they serve, psychologists often work with individuals who are vulnerable due to their age, disability, intellectual ability, and other concerns. When working with these individuals, psychologists must always strive to protect the welfare of their clients.
• Informed Consent : Psychologists are responsible for providing a wide range of services in their roles as therapists, researchers, educators, and consultants. When people are acting as consumers of psychological services, they have a right to know what to expect. In therapy, obtaining informed consent involves explaining what services are offered, what the possible risks might be, and the patient’s right to leave treatment. When conducting research, informed consent involves letting participants know about any possible risks of taking part in the research.
• Confidentiality : Therapy requires providing a safe place for clients to discuss highly personal issues without fear of having this information shared with others or made public. However, sometimes a psychologist might need to share some details such as when consulting with other professionals or when they are publishing research. Ethical guidelines dictate when and how some information might be shared, as well as some of the steps that psychologists should take to protect client privacy.
• Competence : The training, education, and experience of psychologists is also an important ethical concern. Psychologists must possess the skill and knowledge to properly provide the services that clients need. For example, if a psychologist needs to administer a particular assessment in the course of treatment, they should have an understanding of both the administration and interpretation of that specific test.

While ethical codes exist to help psychologists, this does not mean that psychology is free of ethical controversy today. Current debates over psychologists’ participation in torture and the use of animals in psychological research remain hot-button ethical concerns.

Frequently Asked Questions

You can read the APA's Code of Ethics on the American Psychological Association's website here .

If you would like to ask a question about the APA's ethical codes, you can do so on their website here .

American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Including 2010 and 2016 Amendments. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association 2020 https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Hobbs N. The development of a code of ethical standards for psychology .  American Psychologist. 1948;3(3):80–84.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060281

Conlin WE, Boness CL. Ethical considerations for addressing distorted beliefs in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56(4):449-458. doi:10.1037/pst0000252

Stark L. The science of ethics: Deception, the resilient self, and the APA code of ethics, 1966-1973. J Hist Behav Sci . 2010;46(4):337-370. doi:10.1002/jhbs.20468

Smith RD, Holmberg J, Cornish JE. Psychotherapy in the #MeToo era: Ethical issues . Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56(4):483-490. doi:10.1037/pst0000262

Erickson Cornish JA, Smith RD, Holmberg JR, Dunn TM, Siderius LL. Psychotherapists in danger: The ethics of responding to client threats, stalking, and harassment. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56(4):441-448. doi:10.1037/pst0000248

American Psychological Association. Complaints regarding APA members .

American Psychological Association. Council Policy Manual. Policy Related to Psychologists' Work in National Security Settings and Reaffirmation of the APA Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted by APA Council of Representatives, August 2013. Amended by APA Council of Representatives, August 2015. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association 2020 https://www.apa.org/about/policy/national-security

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important the issue under investigation, psychologists must remember that they have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society, and in America, by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology, and psychologists themselves.

Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is, therefore, often a matter of judgment whether the research is justified or not.

For example, it might be that a study causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants; maybe they suffer pain or perhaps even come to serious harm.

On the other hand, the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness.

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) also discuss the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?

Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not, it is worthwhile remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher, it is the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one or more of the following:

• Department Ethics Committee (DEC) : for most routine research.
• Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) : for non-routine research.
• External Ethics Committee (EEC) : for research that s externally regulated (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research.  Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:

Informed Consent

Before the study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research is about and then ask for their consent (i.e., permission) to participate.

An adult (18 years +) capable of being permitted to participate in a study can provide consent. Parents/legal guardians of minors can also provide consent to allow their children to participate in a study.

Whenever possible, investigators should obtain the consent of participants. In practice, this means it is not sufficient to get potential participants to say “Yes.”

They also need to know what it is that they agree to. In other words, the psychologist should, so far as is practicable, explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participants.

Informed consent must be informed, voluntary, and rational. Participants must be given relevant details to make an informed decision, including the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent must be given voluntarily without undue coercion. And participants must have the capacity to rationally weigh the decision.

Components of informed consent include clearly explaining the risks and expected benefits, addressing potential therapeutic misconceptions about experimental treatments, allowing participants to ask questions, and describing methods to minimize risks like emotional distress.

Investigators should tailor the consent language and process appropriately for the study population. Obtaining meaningful informed consent is an ethical imperative for human subjects research.

The voluntary nature of participation should not be compromised through coercion or undue influence. Inducements should be fair and not excessive/inappropriate.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent.  Where the researcher can’t ask the actual participants, a similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about participating.

If they think it would be OK, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

However, a problem with this method is that there might be a mismatch between how people think they would feel/behave and how they actually feel and behave during a study.

In order for consent to be ‘informed,’ consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants’ setting out information about the proposed study (in lay terms), along with details about the investigators and how they can be contacted.

Special considerations exist when obtaining consent from vulnerable populations with decisional impairments, such as psychiatric patients, intellectually disabled persons, and children/adolescents. Capacity can vary widely so should be assessed individually, but interventions to improve comprehension may help. Legally authorized representatives usually must provide consent for children.

Participants must be given information relating to the following:

• A statement that participation is voluntary and that refusal to participate will not result in any consequences or any loss of benefits that the person is otherwise entitled to receive.
• Purpose of the research.
• All foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant (if there are any). These include not only physical injury but also possible psychological.
• Procedures involved in the research.
• Benefits of the research to society and possibly to the individual human subject.
• Length of time the subject is expected to participate.
• Person to contact for answers to questions or in the event of injury or emergency.
• Subjects” right to confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

Debriefing after a study involves informing participants about the purpose, providing an opportunity to ask questions, and addressing any harm from participation. Debriefing serves an educational function and allows researchers to correct misconceptions. It is an ethical imperative.

After the research is over, the participant should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. They must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should be explained.

Participants must be told if they have been deceived and given reasons why. They must be asked if they have any questions, which should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Debriefing should occur as soon as possible and be as full as possible; experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants understand debriefing.

“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).

The debriefing aims to provide information and help the participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it (Aronson, 1988).

Exceptions may exist if debriefing seriously compromises study validity or causes harm itself, like negative emotions in children. Consultation with an institutional review board guides exceptions.

Debriefing indicates investigators’ commitment to participant welfare. Harms may not be raised in the debriefing itself, so responsibility continues after data collection. Following up demonstrates respect and protects persons in human subjects research.

Protection of Participants

Researchers must ensure that those participating in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.

Normally, the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e., participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles.

The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups are to be used (elderly, disabled, children, etc.), they must receive special care. For example, if studying children, ensure their participation is brief as they get tired easily and have a limited attention span.

Researchers are not always accurately able to predict the risks of taking part in a study, and in some cases, a therapeutic debriefing may be necessary if participants have become disturbed during the research (as happened to some participants in Zimbardo’s prisoners/guards study ).

Deception research involves purposely misleading participants or withholding information that could influence their participation decision. This method is controversial because it limits informed consent and autonomy, but can provide otherwise unobtainable valuable knowledge.

Types of deception include (i) deliberate misleading, e.g. using confederates, staged manipulations in field settings, deceptive instructions; (ii) deception by omission, e.g., failure to disclose full information about the study, or creating ambiguity.

The researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is no alternative – and even then, this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent expert. However, some types of research cannot be carried out without at least some element of deception.

For example, in Milgram’s study of obedience , the participants thought they were giving electric shocks to a learner when they answered a question wrongly. In reality, no shocks were given, and the learners were confederates of Milgram.

This is sometimes necessary to avoid demand characteristics (i.e., the clues in an experiment that lead participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for).

Another common example is when a stooge or confederate of the experimenter is used (this was the case in both the experiments carried out by Asch ).

According to ethics codes, deception must have strong scientific justification, and non-deceptive alternatives should not be feasible. Deception that causes significant harm is prohibited. Investigators should carefully weigh whether deception is necessary and ethical for their research.

However, participants must be deceived as little as possible, and any deception must not cause distress.  Researchers can determine whether participants are likely distressed when deception is disclosed by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Participants should immediately be informed of the deception without compromising the study’s integrity. Reactions to learning of deception can range from understanding to anger. Debriefing should explain the scientific rationale and social benefits to minimize negative reactions.

If the participant is likely to object or be distressed once they discover the true nature of the research at debriefing, then the study is unacceptable.

If you have gained participants’ informed consent by deception, then they will have agreed to take part without actually knowing what they were consenting to.  The true nature of the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity or at least during debriefing.

Some researchers argue that deception can never be justified and object to this practice as it (i) violates an individual’s right to choose to participate; (ii) is a questionable basis on which to build a discipline; and (iii) leads to distrust of psychology in the community.

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical imperative that demonstrates respect, ensures honest participation, and prevents harms like embarrassment or legal issues. Methods like data encryption, coding systems, and secure storage should match the research methodology.

Participants and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their full consent.  No names must be used in a lab report .

Researchers must clearly describe to participants the limits of confidentiality and methods to protect privacy. With internet research, threats exist like third-party data access; security measures like encryption should be explained. For non-internet research, other protections should be noted too, like coding systems and restricted data access.

High-profile data breaches have eroded public trust. Methods that minimize identifiable information can further guard confidentiality. For example, researchers can consider whether birthdates are necessary or just ages.

Generally, reducing personal details collected and limiting accessibility safeguards participants. Following strong confidentiality protections demonstrates respect for persons in human subjects research.

What do we do if we discover something that should be disclosed (e.g., a criminal act)? Researchers have no legal obligation to disclose criminal acts and must determine the most important consideration: their duty to the participant vs. their duty to the wider community.

Ultimately, decisions to disclose information must be set in the context of the research aims.

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study anytime if they feel uncomfortable. They should also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw.

They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to (a guideline flouted in Milgram’s research).

Participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study. Many participants are paid or receive course credits; they may worry they won’t get this if they withdraw.

Even at the end of the study, the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they have provided for the research.

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS or APA guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children participating would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, consider the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young children in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are not harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

• Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
• Friends and relatives of those participating in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.
• The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
• The institution in which the research is conducted.

salso suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• How the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics can detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t.

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to consider them fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how participating in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : It is unethical if the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits. However, it isn’t easy to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.

Arguments for SSR

• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.

Arguments against SSR

• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children.  Child development ,  65 (2), 457-471.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5) , 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research.  American psychologist ,  43 (1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Further Information

• MIT Psychology Ethics Lecture Slides

BPS Documents

• Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018)
• Good Practice Guidelines for the Conduct of Psychological Research within the NHS
• Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals
• Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online

APA Documents

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Ethical foundations for graduate students in the psychological sciences

Julia bravin.

1 SDSU/UC San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology

Jessica Carrasco

Michael kalichman.

2 Department of Pathology, and Director, Research Ethics Program UC San Diego

Preparation to address ethical challenges is an essential component of graduate training, and no less so for the psychological sciences. However, in the absence of uniform guidelines, approaches to training vary in form and quality. Classroom lectures and online training seem to be the mechanisms of choice, but these fall short. First, such approaches conflict with the scholarship on teaching and learning that makes it clear that having a meaningful impact depends on having students actively engaged in constructing their own learning. Second, research is consistent with intuition that the impact of courses is likely to be far less than what happens in a graduate student’s research environment. The conclusion is that promoting an ethical culture, and for the training of graduate students in particular, will be well served by enhancing the role of mentors. Examples of options to consider are: (1) recognizing that a primary advisor can be a mentor, but should certainly not be considered the only mentor; (2) emphasizing the importance of mentoring for individuals from underrepresented groups (e.g., because of gender or ethnicity); (3) strengthening the APA code of ethics to more fully articulate the full range and importance of mentoring; (4) developing and implementing mechanisms to evaluate and reward effective mentoring; and (5) providing targeted training for faculty advisors to empower them with tools and resources to be effective mentors for ethics generally and the responsible conduct of research specifically.

“Like any relationship, creation of a foundation of trust, nurturance, and support is the best context for a mentee to experience maximal growth.” ( Gruber et al., 2020 )

Science faces a crisis in integrity ( Alberts et al., 2014 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ). While intentional lapses in honest reporting are a significant threat ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ), it is arguably even more important that the integrity of science can be compromised unintentionally through insufficient understanding or awareness of good practices of science ( Ioannidis, 2005 ). The latter challenge is probably best illustrated by worries about the reproducibility of science ( Baker, 2016 ). The field of psychological sciences is not immune to the reproducibility crisis ( Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ). Some authors have even proposed that with the right methodological choices you can prove anything in psychology ( Simmons et al., 2011 ). The risks here are that deficient research practices can result in false positive findings. To the extent this is true, the implication for translation of psychological findings into practice is at least disturbing and possibly harmful. The subject of this manuscript is how to minimize these challenges by better preparing the next generation of researchers. What, if anything, can be done to strengthen the integrity of science, and in psychological sciences in particular?

Following WWII, the prominence of psychological sciences and growing ethical concerns led to the establishment of the American Psychological Association code of ethics (1953) . Over 2000 psychologists created a document outlining standards for public responsibility, client relationships, teaching, research, writing and publishing, and professional relationships. The code of ethics was established to acknowledge the societal responsibility of psychologists to not only better understand human behavior through ethical research, but also, in treating mental illnesses through ethical clinical engagements. Since then, the APA code of ethics has been revised to reflect current ethical challenges (e.g., cultural competence, open science) through more specific and updated standards closely mirrored guidelines for responsible conduct of research ( American Psychological Association, 2017 ).

Notwithstanding the APA code of ethics, responsible conduct of research (RCR) was not a prominent concern before the 1980s. However, in the face of several high-profile cases of research misconduct (e.g., summarized in Kalichman, 2013a ), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established a new requirement that trainees supported by NIH training grants should receive RCR instruction ( NIH, 1989 ). Although at least in part a response to cases of research misconduct, the requirement could be characterized as calling for teaching about rules, regulations, and to some extent good practices of research, largely consistent with the APA code of ethics guidelines (e.g., need for institutional review board approval, informed consent, protection of human participants, mentoring). This approach to mitigating misconduct is questionable. While it is plausible that someone might be dissuaded from committing research misconduct if they were first told it is against guidelines or regulations to lie, cheat, or steal, it is more likely that most adults already know this. On the other hand, for cases of research misconduct that might be “accidental,” this approach may have some value. In any case, there is an implicit assumption that trainees would benefit from a better understanding of how research should be done.

The scientific community has largely focused on education or training as the remedy for deficiencies in research conduct, resulting in a proliferation of courses, workshops, seminars, and resources to promote RCR ( Kalichman, 2013a ). Many APA accredited psychology graduate programs have made research ethics courses a core requirement. Although such requirements as well as training required by the U.S. federal government (e.g., through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)) ensure access to RCR training, each institution has the liberty to decide what is to be taught within these courses ensuring a lack of consistency in goals and content covered ( Phillips et al., 2018 ). To date, the overarching goals of RCR programs remain unclear.

While it might seem enough to say the goal is “responsible conduct of research,” that begs the question of what should be covered and how it should be covered. One answer is current NIH guidelines for RCR training in which nine topics are recommended ( NIH, 2009 ). These include: conflicts of interest, human and animal subjects, mentoring, collaborations, peer review, data management, research misconduct, authorship and publication, and social responsibilities. However, as these are only guidelines, it might seem more useful to simply ask teachers of RCR about their goals for teaching ( Kalichman and Plemmons, 2007 ). The answers were wide-ranging, including: (1) conveying new knowledge (e.g., ethical theories, rules and regulations); (2) nurturing skills (e.g., ethical decision-making, stress or time management); (3) encouraging positive attitudes (e.g., recognizing the importance of promoting RCR, continued learning, and valuing openness and transparency); (4) stimulating positive behaviors (e.g., conducting responsible rather than fraudulent research, being a good mentor, taking responsibility to learn and follow relevant rules); and (5) building community (e.g., providing opportunities for trainees to speak to one another in class, but to also do so outside of class with peers, mentors, faculty, and others). All of these are desirable outcomes, but not only is it unrealistic to expect to meet so many different goals at the same time, classroom education and training are unfortunately unlikely to have significant impact.

Challenges to effectiveness of RCR courses

The hurdles limiting the impact of courses are numerous. First, it is certainly unrealistic to think that any one course, much less a seminar or workshop, could address all of the possible issues ( Kalichman, 2013b ). It would of course be even more dubious to expect much more than conveying limited knowledge if the approach were simply an online tutorial ( Kalichman, 2005 ). Second, it should not be surprising that a single course is likely to be less important in shaping outcomes than the pervasive, daily exposure a researcher experiences over the course of a career (e.g., Anderson et al., 2007 ). Third, researchers may work in an institutional environment in which leadership, policies, and resources could unfortunately send a clear message contrary to the efforts made in the classroom. Finally, the culture of science is one in which the incentives are often perverse—publication in high impact factor journals, high volume of publications, and first authorship is valued and rewarded over publishing work more likely to be reproducible ( Oransky & Marcus, 2016 ). The nature of the incentives widely perceived to define science would likely undermine the impact of attempts at training or education. In light of these challenges, it is important to ask how best to provide training.

For most educational goals, the scholarship on teaching and learning is clear: It is better for students to be actively engaged rather than being a passive audience for a lecture or simply reading material online ( National Research Council, 2000 ; Brown et al., 2014 ; Freeman et al., 2014 ). While lectures or online training may have some value, meaningful impact should be expected only when learners are in effect generating their own learning by being actively engaged. This can be done in many ways ranging from small group case discussions to debates to role playing to conducting surveys to games ( Plemmons and Kalichman, 2008 ). However, while such activities definitely strengthen courses, it remains true that the greatest impact is likely going to come from a trainee’s experiences in the laboratory, a culture and context largely dictated by their mentors.

It is increasingly recognized that graduate students and trainees receive the majority of their ethics education and information regarding the practical implementation of ethical standards, not from formal classroom training, but rather from the ‘hidden curriculum’— socialization into RCR that includes formal instruction from principal investigators (PIs) (who often serve as primary mentors), observed behaviors of other researchers, day-to-day interactions with members of the research team, and experiencing the culture of the research environment ( Fryer-Edwards, 2002 ). In this setting, it is the PI who serves not only to set the cultural norms with regard to ethical scientific practice, but along with other senior laboratory staff also serves as a professional role model for trainees. PIs, thus, lead by example, modeling both “good” and “bad” behaviors that a trainee may internalize and integrate as normative behaviors of a seasoned scientist ( Fryer-Edwards, 2002 ; Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2002 ; Peiffer et al., 2008 ; Satalkar and Shaw, 2019 ; Plemmons et al., 2020 ).

As for RCR training and goals, mentorship in academic research has varied widely among and even within institutions. Who is considered a mentor versus a PI or an advisor, the degree of interactions, and responsibilities of mentors to their protégés are among many factors to be considered ( Cobb et al., 2018 ). While the expected roles of advisors and mentors overlap and are variably defined, a primary “advisor” often has a supervisory role (i.e., their guidance might be seen more as expectations rather than advice). On the other hand, a mentor does not necessarily have a formal relationship with the mentee so their role is much more advisory than supervisory (i.e., their guidance would be considered as suggestions rather than expectations). In clinical psychology, formal mentorship expands beyond a primary advisor, and also includes clinical and dissertation advisors ( Cobb et al., 2018 ). This further confounds the proper dissemination of ethical practices to students given not only the variance in ethical standards across institutions, but also variance in RCR teaching provided by mentors or advisors.

Despite the variation, mentoring in psychological training can improve academic productivity, professional competence, and the success of psychology graduate students ( Johnson et al., 2000 ; Williams-Nickelson, 2009 , Mangione et al., 2018 ). This is an opportunity to ensure trainees are well-trained and prepared to engage in best practices for how research is conducted, reported, and applied. Unfortunately, in practice, training in clinical psychology (e.g., scientist-practitioner, practitioner-scholar) does not necessarily promote the direct use of mentors ( Clark et al., 2000 ).

Few studies have addressed mentoring for psychology graduate students, but such research has increased in recent years. One area of concern is that graduate students in clinical psychology programs are less likely than those in experimental psychology programs to receive mentoring ( Johnson et al., 2000 ), although clinical psychology Ph.D. students were more likely than Psy.D. students to receive mentorship ( Clark et al., 2000 ). While it is marginally “good news” that 50–70% of graduate students surveyed received mentoring, it is concerning that only about 8% of mentors initiate the relationship ( Clark et al., 2000 ). Even more worrisome, 11% of survey respondents report ethical concerns regarding their mentor or mentor relationship (e.g., research related concerns, sexualized relationships), underscoring the difficulty of addressing ethical training and concerns within the context of the mentor-mentee relationship.

While traditional mentorship meetings are considered the cornerstone of graduate student training, there is a general lack of consensus as to how (i.e., what content, in what format, and with what frequency) mentorship meetings should address ethical practice in science ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2002 ). Compared to traditional graduate programs, clinical psychology graduate students have the challenge of dividing time between research and clinical training, with students spending less time with their research advisors, and having less exposure to the modeling and teaching of ethical research behaviors ( Johnson et al., 2000 ).

About half of clinical psychology trainees’ time is spent in external clinical settings that often last a year or less; the structure of clinical psychology training models, thus, pose an additional challenge for students to establish meaningful mentorship relationships. This discrepancy may be more pronounced in programs where clinical training is prioritized over research (e.g., professional versus Ph.D. programs).

At least one other aspect of mentoring in the psychological sciences that warrants attention is mental health. Recent research has highlighted the mental health crisis in graduate students ( Kemsley, 2017 ) and clinical psychology students are not immune to these statistics ( Rummell, 2015 ). It is particularly concerning that psychology students often have unaddressed mental health concerns— something that could impact, not only trainees’ overall well-being and productivity ( Liu et al., 2019 ), but also their ability to be effective clinicians. Institutions have a responsibility to promote a culture that communicates to trainees that success in graduate school, including academic productivity (e.g., publications, grants) and clinical proficiency, depends first on their physical and mental health. Providing resources for students to receive mental health treatment when necessary, for example, is a critical factor in maintaining graduate student health and productivity.

A common challenge to addressing ethical dilemmas in the context of academic mentorship lies in the very nature of the mentor-mentee dynamic. The relationship between mentor and trainee is a power-discrepant one in which mentors have implicit and explicit dominance. Additionally, mentors are often expected (if not required) to financially support their trainees ( Gruber et al., 2020 ). Institutions and mentors alike, promote a culture in which graduate students are expected and rewarded for scholarly contributions above other career-oriented pursuits and, at times, well-being (e.g., taking on additional clinical hours, working long hours/weekends). Paradoxically, the power imbalance between any teacher/mentor and student/trainee, combined with an overarching culture of research productivity, may inadvertently promote unethical behavior. For this reason, mechanisms are needed to critically monitor the mentor-mentee relationship and mitigate risks.

As part of RCR training and mentorship, it is also important to consider multicultural competency and ethical concerns regarding research within diverse populations. This plays out in two ways: (1) the training of underrepresented minority (URM) students and (2) the teaching of multicultural ethics. Certain barriers are currently in place limiting appropriate RCR training through mentorship in these groups. For example, traditional one-on-one mentoring is not equitably available to all graduate students, particularly women and members of URM groups ( Holt et al., 2016 ). Further, a major contributor to the on-going difficulties in recruitment and retention of URM researchers, are barriers posed by institutions themselves ( de Dios et al., 2013 ). Such barriers limit accessibility to diverse mentors in research settings, who are important not only to trainees’ development, but who could also provide services to clients who might benefit from a clinician from an underrepresented population. Additionally, little is known overall about the role of gender and ethnicity in graduate students’ ethics experiences or their impressions of RCR training at an individual or institutional level and further research is warranted ( Fisher et al., 2009 ).

Even though efforts to ameliorate some of the aforementioned barriers are still works in progress, academic advising has been shown to contribute to URM student success ( Museus & Ravello, 2010 ). Specifically, three themes were identified in what made an advising relationship most effective: (1) advisors that showed concern about all aspects of the student’s life extending beyond research; (2) advisors that connected students to resources once they expressed concerns; and (3) advisors that proactively connected students to resources ( Museus & Ravello, 2010 ). These three themes may seem intuitive but are especially critical when advising students of color given that many of these groups are exposed to additional stressors (e.g., microaggressions, discrimination) that increase stress and affect psychological well-being ( Miller & Orsillo, 2020 ). In the same vein, given the changing demographics in the United States, diverse research/clinical teams are imperative in addressing mental health disparities response to this challenge, funding institutions, such as the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, have made concerted efforts in recent years to shift diversity-related issues from the periphery to a central focus and value. Not only is recruitment of participants from URM populations now mandated, but also new efforts are designed to recruit and train underrepresented researchers ( Valantine et al., 2016 ).

Guidelines calling for effective mentoring (e.g., American Psychological Association, 1953 ) are important, even though such guidelines alone are insufficient to meet this goal, much less ensure effective RCR mentoring. Despite a clear distinction between mentoring and advising in clinical psychology ( Cobb et al., 2018 ), quantifying the strength of mentoring lacks standardization, especially when trying to gauge RCR training. To meet this challenge, Fisher and colleagues proposed scales to measure mentoring, institutional attitudes, and perceived preparedness in RCR training ( Fisher et al., 2009 ). Development and use of such objective, reliable, and valid measures is important in helping to capture differences among programs/institutions and may help guide improved mentoring and accountability.

Another challenge for mentoring guidelines is that the APA code of ethics speaks exclusively to the teaching and training of students via mentors, but the role of students themselves in teaching and training other psychology graduate students is often missed in the discussion. Considering the importance of peers and fellow researchers in providing informal mentorship ( Lewinski et al., 2017 ) and setting the research environment culture, this narrow focus is a clear short-coming. There is room to improve the APA code of ethics by expanding expectations for the training of graduate students to be effective, ethical mentors ( Brown, 2016 ). In doing so, students can perhaps view themselves as members of a community that values ethics, rather than being passive recipients of ethical training from their mentors and institutions.

In addition to having students more actively engaged in peer training, having access to multiple mentors may also be a remedy for the potentially damaging effects of the power-discrepant nature of the mentor-mentee relationship and trainee perceptions of the competitive nature of the laboratory setting ( Martinson et al., 2005 ; Anderson et al., 2007 ). As with other dimensions of mentoring, multiple mentors can help increase the chance a mentee will hear and experience important messages about good practices and responsible conduct of research. A multiple-mentor model ( Gruber et al., 2020 ), that includes non-evaluative mentors, and even assigned peer mentors, would allow students to discuss topics they might otherwise hesitate to discuss with formal mentors (e.g., what to do when others in the lab are suspected of unethical behaviors, how to navigate situations arising from the power differential between a trainee and mentor such as pressures to publish, or inappropriate demands on time). Support from mentors with differing perspectives and skillsets may also serve to buffer dysfunctional mentoring relationships and increase the likelihood of appropriate whistleblowing ( Terry and Ghosh, 2015 ).

Interestingly, multiple mentorship models are already part of clinical psychology programs in the context of clinical training. Multiple tiers of supervision (which can include primary and secondary clinical supervisors, post-doctoral trainees, and interns) share some similarities with the proposed structure of RCR mentoring and training. However, the goals of clinical and research training do not always align (e.g., in research, standardization of measures is highly valued, but in the clinical context, more precise diagnostic evaluations may depend on personalization). Furthermore, depending on the institution, academic research roles may be perceived as more valuable than clinical roles impeding exploration and acquisition of additional ethical training earlier in student’s careers. Likewise, professional schools in clinical psychology may emphasize clinical careers over academic roles, thereby limiting access to appropriate RCR training. Having access to several mentors who can speak to the ethics and challenges inherent to research and clinical work, particularly when their objectives clash, is particularly important in providing graduate students with a wide range of training to handle the various dilemmas to be faced as an independent clinical psychologist. In short, while mentors, particularly multiple mentors, have a central role in trainee success, there is room to improve mentoring as well as the culture of graduate training programs in the psychological sciences.

Recommendation 1. Training for Mentors

In light of the limitations of relying solely on traditional classroom-based RCR training, it is imperative that mentors explicitly address ethical issues in a practical and laboratory-relevant fashion. Trainings such as those proposed by Peiffer and colleagues (2011) and Kalichman and Plemmons (2017) are geared towards providing mentors and educators with tools and strategies for engaging trainees in regular RCR discussions. These “train the trainer” curricula have been well received by trainees and mentors. Furthermore, Peiffer and colleagues argue that integrating such routine discussions promotes RCR as a core value of the laboratory and inculcates moral and ethical questioning as an automatic response to ambiguous situations among trainees. In surveying their participants, Peiffer found that trainees and staff both agreed that they could freely report protocol violations and mistakes to their superiors. Overall, such changes in laboratory culture could ultimately translate to reductions in questionable scientific practices.

Recommendation 2. Guidelines for Trainees

A positive mentoring relationship is a prerequisite for effective RCR mentoring, but trainees often lack the power to find and maintain such a relationship. Institutions have a responsibility to openly acknowledge the power differential inherent in the mentor-mentee relationship and provide trainees with clear guidance for what to do when ethical dilemmas, particularly in the mentor-mentee relationship, emerge (e.g., seek consultation from other mentors). Each graduate program could provide and maintain guidelines somewhere easily accessible to students, and these resources (e.g., an ombuds office) could be presented at initial onboarding. Further, program-specific committees comprised of students and faculty, could meet annually to discuss these evolving guidelines, as well as, present bi-annual surveys to students to gauge institutional climate.

Recommendation 3. Evaluation of Mentoring

If mentoring of trainees is important, then it is reasonable to expect that mentors should be evaluated at least in part on their mentoring. The focus of evaluation could nominally include frequency of mentorship meetings, frequency with which the mentor promotes discussion among trainees, and adequacy with which relevant ethical issues are addressed. Such evaluation of the mentor-mentee relationship in graduate programs would serve to hold mentors accountable for covering ethical issues and may even stimulate discussion of ethical issues relevant to a trainee’s particular research environment. It is perhaps worth considering that such evaluations would best be accomplished through a committee outside the department in an effort to promote change, minimize potential backlash, and protect the students. In addition to assessing these mentorship duties, it might also be useful to assess trainee perceptions of their preparedness to address ethical dilemmas in the context of their research environments and their comfort in bringing ethical questions to their supervisors’ and mentors’ attention. Assessments of trainees’ general preparedness, even if results are summarized across multiple students/cohorts, might serve as a barometer for the quality and effectiveness of mentors’ promotion of ethical practices.

Institutions could provide aggregated results of student feedback surveys to faculty members and elicit from mentors proposed means for remediation when applicable.

Recommendation 4. Institutional Role in Promoting RCR Mentoring

Finally, in addition to the significant role of mentorship in shaping trainee perceptions of appropriate scientific practices, the role of the institution to establish and promote the overall scientific culture must also be acknowledged. Unlike mentorship which can be variable and unpredictable, the institutional climate can be thought of us a constant and necessary backdrop for consistent and effective training ( Fisher et al., 2009 ). To effectively enforce RCR discussions in the context of the mentor-mentee relationship, institutions could: 1) promote a multi-mentor structure (e.g., resources and strategies for obtaining non-evaluative mentors or identifying others that might serve as professional role models); 2) formally describe expectations for mentors including descriptions of how to engage mentees in RCR discussions; 3) offer or perhaps require mentor discussion-based training, including problem solving, laboratory-relevant scenarios and dilemmas; and 4) develop and conduct formal evaluations of mentorship effectiveness in promoting ethics-relevant discussion among trainees. These steps to strengthen mentoring would arguably make a significant impact on the culture of ethics in clinical psychological sciences.

Public Significance Statement:

Research in the psychological sciences has a profound impact on every aspect of our lives. The quality of that research depends on robust training and mentoring for the next generation of scientists. This article recommends several strategies institutions can implement to strengthen mentoring in the responsible conduct of research.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NCATS/NIH UL1TR001442) and the National Science Foundation (CCE STEM #1835029). The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not reflect the view of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, or the United States government.

• Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, & Varmus H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws . PNAS , 111 ( 16 ), 5773–5777. 10.1073/pnas.1404402111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• American Psychological Association (1953). Ethical standards of Psychologists . The American Psychological Association . http://supp.apa.org/books/Essential-Ethics-for-Psychologists/1953ethicscode.pdf
• American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf
• Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, DeVries R, & Martinson BC (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 853–860. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson MS, Ronning EA, De Vries R, & Martinson BC (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships . Science and Engineering Ethics , 13 ( 4 ), 437–461. 10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility . Nature , 533 ( 7604 ), 452–4. 10.1038/533452a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bogat GA & Redner RL (1985). How mentoring affects the professional development of women in psychology . Professional psychology: Research and practice , 16 ( 6 ), 851. 10.1037/0735-7028.16.6.851 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown CE (2016). Ethical issues when graduate students act as mentors . Ethics & Behavior , 26 ( 8 ), 688–702. 10.1080/10508422.2016.1155151 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown PC, Roediger HL III, & McDaniel MA (2014). Make it Stick: The science of successful learning . Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chrisler JC, de las Fuentes C, Durvasula RS, Esnil EM, McHugh MC, Miles-Cohen SE, Williams JL, & Wisdom JP (2013). The American Psychological Association’s Committee on Women in Psychology: 40 years of contributions to the transformation of psychology . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 37 ( 4 ), 444–454. 10.1177/0361684313505442 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark RA, Harden SL, & Johnson WB (2000). Mentor Relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey . Teaching of Psychology , 27 ( 4 ), 262–268. 10.1207/S15328023TOP2704_04 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cobb CL, Zamboanga BL, Xie D, Schwartz SJ, Meca A, & Sanders GL (2018). From advising to mentoring: Toward proactive mentoring in health service psychology doctoral training programs . Training and Education in Professional Psychology , 12 ( 1 ), 38. 10.1037/tep0000187 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Dios MA, Kuo C, Hernandez L, Clark US, Wenze SJ, Boisseau CL, Hunter HL, Reddy MK, Tolou-Shams M, & Zlotnick C. (2013). The development of a diversity mentoring program for faculty and trainees: a program at the brown clinical psychology training consortium . The Behavior therapist/AABT , 36 ( 5 ), 121–6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207083 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dohm FA & Cummings W. (2002). Research mentoring and women in clinical psychology . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 26 ( 2 ), 163–167. 10.1111/1471-6402.00055 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher CB, Fried AL, & Feldman LG (2009). Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students . Ethics & Behavior , 19 ( 6 ), 496–518. 10.1080/10508420903275283 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher CB, Fried AL, Goodman SJ, & Germano KK (2009). Measures of mentoring, department climate, and graduate student preparedness in the responsible conduct of psychological research . Ethics & Behavior , 19 ( 3 ), 227–252. 10.1080/;2F10508420902886726 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, & Wenderoth MP (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics . PNAS , 111 ( 23 ), 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fryer-Edwards K. (2002). Addressing the hidden curriculum in scientific research . The American Journal of Bioethics , 2 ( 4 ), 58–59. 10.1162/152651602320957619 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruber J, Borelli JL, Prinstein MJ, Clark LA, Davila J, Gee DG, Klein DN, Levenson RW, Mendle J, Olatunji BO, Rose GL, Saxbe D, & Weinstock LM (2020). Best practices in research mentoring in clinical science . Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 129 ( 1 ), 70–81. 10.1037/abn0000478 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harden SL, Clark RA, Johnson WB, & Larson J. (2009). Cross-gender mentorship in clinical psychology doctoral programs: an exploratory survey study . Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning , 17 : 3 , 277–290. 10.1080/13611260903050239 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holt DT, Markova G, Dhaenens AJ, Marler LE, & Heilmann SG (2016). Formal or informal mentoring: What drives employees to seek informal mentors? Journal of Managerial Issues , 28 ( 1–2 ), 67–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.17226/10430 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ioannidis JPA (2005). Why most published research findings are false . PLOS | Medicine . 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ]
• Johnson WB, Koch C, Fallow GO, & Huwe JM (2000). Prevalence of mentoring in clinical versus experimental doctoral programs: Survey findings, implications, and recommendations . Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training , 37 ( 4 ), 325. 10.1037/0033-3204.37.4.325 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalichman M. & Plemmons D. (2007). Reported Goals for Responsible Conduct of Research Courses . Academic Medicine , 82 ( 9 ), 846–852. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalichman M. (2005). Use and abuse of the internet for teaching research ethics--commentary on “Misconceptions and realities about teaching online” . Sci Eng Ethics , 11 ( 3 ), 341–5. 10.1007/s11948-005-0003-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalichman M. (2013a). A brief history of RCR education . Accountability in Research , 20 ( 5–6 ), 380–394. 10.1080/08989621.2013.822260 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalichman M. (2013b). Why Teach Research Ethics? Practical Guidance on Science and Engineering Ethics Education for Instructors and Administrators : Papers and Summary from a Workshop December 12, 2012. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/18519/chapter/4 [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalichman MW & Plemmons DK (2017). Intervention to promote responsible conduct of research mentoring . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 2 ), 699–725. 10.1007/s11948-017-9929-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemsley J. (2017). Grappling with graduate student mental health and suicide . Chemical & Engineering News , 95 ( 32 ), 28–33. https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i32/Grappling-graduate-student-mental-health.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewinski AA, Mann T, Flores D, Vance A, Bettger JP, Hirschey R. (2017). Partnership for development: A peer mentorship model for PhD students . J Prof Nurs , 33 ( 5 ), 363–369. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.03.004 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu C, Wang L, Qi R, et al. (2019). Prevalence and associated factors of depression and anxiety among doctoral students: The mediating effect of mentoring relationships on the association between research self-efficacy and depression/anxiety . Psychol Res Behav Manag , 12 ,195–208. 10.2147/PRBM.S195131 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangione L, Borden KA, Nadkarni L, Evarts K, & Hyde K. (2018). Mentoring in clinical psychology programs: Broadening and deepening . Training and Education in Professional Psychology , 12 ( 1 ), 4–13. 10.1037/tep0000167 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martinson B, Anderson M. & de Vries R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly . Nature , 435 , 737–738. 10.1038/435737a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maton KI, Kohout JL, Wicherski M, Leary GE, & Vinokurov A. (2006). Minority students of color and the psychology graduate pipeline: Disquieting and encouraging trends, 1989–2003 . American Psychologist , 61 ( 2 ), 117. 10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.117 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller AN, & Orsillo SM (2020). Values, acceptance, and belongingness in graduate school: Perspectives from underrepresented minority students . Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science .
• Museus SD, & Ravello JN (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly White institutions . NACADA journal , 30 ( 1 ), 47–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Fostering Integrity in Research . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.17226/21896 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.17226/9853 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NIH (1989). Requirement for programs on the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training programs . NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts , 18 ( 45 ), 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• NIH (2009). Update on the requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Notice Number: NOT-OD-10–019 , http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-10-019.html
• Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science . Science , 349 ( 6251 ), aac4716. 10.1126/science.aac4716 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oransky I. & Marcus A. (2016). For science to improve, let’s put the right prizes on offer . StatNews , https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science
• Peiffer AM, Hugenschmidt CE, & Laurienti PJ (2011). Ethics in 15-minutes per week . Science and Engineering Ethics , 17 ( 2 ), 289–297. 10.1007/s11948-010-9197-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peiffer AM, Laurienti PJ, & Hugenschmidt CE (2008). Fostering a culture of responsible lab conduct . Science , 322 , 1186. 10.1126/science.322.5905.1186b [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips T, Nestor F, Beach G, & Heitman E. (2018). America COMPETES at 5 years: An analysis of research-intensive universities’ RCR training plans . Science and Engineering Ethics , 24 ( 1 ), 227–249. 10.1007/s11948-017-9883-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plemmons DK, Baranski EN, Harp K, Lo DD, Soderberg CK, Errington TM, Nosek BA & Esterling KM (2020). A randomized trial of a lab-embedded discourse intervention to improve research ethics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 , 1389–1394 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plemmons DK & Kalichman M. (2008). Discussion tools . Resources for Research Ethics Education . http://research-ethics.org/discussion-tools
• Rummell CM (2015). An exploratory study of psychology graduate student workload, health, and program satisfaction . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 46 ( 6 ), 391–399. 10.1037/pro0000056 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Satalkar P. & Shaw D. (2019). How do researchers acquire and develop notions of research integrity? A qualitative study among biomedical researchers in Switzerland . BMC Med Ethics 20 , 72. 10.1186/s12910-019-0410-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simmons JP, Nelson LD, & Simonsohn U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant . Psychol Sci ., 22 ( 11 ), 1359–66. 10.1177/2F0956797611417632 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Terry T. & Ghosh R. (2015). Mentoring from different social spheres: How can multiple mentors help in doctoral student success in Ed.D. programs? Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning , 23 ( 3 ), 187–212. 10.1080/13611267.2015.1072396 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valantine HA, Lund PK, & Gammie AE (2016). From the NIH: A systems approach to increasing the diversity of the biomedical research workforce . CBE Life Sciences Education , 15 ( 3 ), fe4. 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0138 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams-Nickelson C. (2009). Mentoring women graduate students: A model for professional psychology . Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 40 ( 3 ), 284–291. 10.1037/a0012450 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Calming Power of Rituals

Have you ever tried telling yourself to calm down—perhaps while half-panicked, staring at yourself in the mirror of a restroom next to the conference room where you’re leading a meeting in two minutes…one minute…? Or have you ever suggested to your irate significant other, “You need to calm down”? How did that work out?   It might seem as if a straightforward reminder should be effective. We are surrounded by motivational mantras (“Keep Calm and Carry On”) aimed at keeping us placid. But those efforts are trying to suppress a strong human mechanism known as arousal—a psychological and physical state of high tension that includes the activation of the limbic and sympathetic nervous systems. Imagine telling yourself to “calm down” while a bear chases you, as you experience an arousal cocktail of stress and perhaps see your life flash before your eyes.

No ritual has the power to make rock stars or savants out of us. We still have to contend with the realities of aptitude and proficiency and the discipline of daily practice. But rituals can give us a way to manage our nerves, dial into the skills we’ve worked so hard to achieve and give us that elusive something more that allows us to step into the spotlight and shine.

Read the whole story (subscription may be required): The Wall Street Journal

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

Group Rituals Can Make Us Biased Against Outsiders

Engaging in basic rituals — even arbitrary movements — can make us more likely to trust those who share the same ritual and less likely to trust those who don’t.

Religion Past and Present

0:13 – How Religions Became Moral and Spiritual – Pascal R. Boyer, Washington University in St. Louis 15:17 – I’m Learning (,) God: Spirituality and Religion in African American Life – Jacqueline S. Mattis, University

Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science

Aimed at integrating cutting-edge psychological science into the classroom, Teaching Current Directions in Psychological Science offers advice and how-to guidance about teaching a particular area of research or topic in psychological science that has been

Privacy Overview