Imagine a study was done in 1930, before the APA enacted ethical guidelines and before IRB committees were common. If that study were unethical but highly interesting in terms of the results, should textbooks still talk about the study and what we learned from it? Does continuing to talk about the study disrespect the participants, or does learning from it mean that at least we are attempting to get some good from the bad that already occurred?
What will be an ideal response?
varies
You might also like to view...
According to developmental psychologist William Damon, when 9-year-old Gloria is asked, "How do you know that someone is your best friend?" it is highly likely that she will respond __________.
A. "Because a friend is someone you can count on to help you when you need it" B. "Because a friend is someone who is fun to be with" C. "Because I can play a lot with my best friend" D. "Because a friend is somebody who puts my feelings first"
Which of the following theorists would predict that sprinkling water on sleeping people would make them dream about rain?
A. Calvin Hall B. Hobson and McCarley C. Crick and Mitchison D. Winson
Poverty among lone aging women is deeper in the United States than in other Western nations because
A) U.S. women live longer than women in other Western nations. B) women in other Western nations start out wealthier. C) widowed women in the United States are more likely to live in federally subsidized residential units. D) of less generous government-sponsored income and health benefits.
What are criticisms of Ellis?
What will be an ideal response?