Dr. Franklin wants to study the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. He will tell his subjects that they will take a paper and penc
il test and have them sign forms to agree to participate. He will then tell them he left their test papers in his office and will be back in a few minutes with them. While he is away, one of his research assistants will run into the room and steal something from the professor's desk and run back out again. Dr. Franklin will then come back in, hand out the test papers, and ask the participants to describe the suspect in detail. Dr. Franklin will explain what occurred after he collects the participants' papers. What might an ethics review committee decide about the proposal? (3 points) A:The proposal is approved, as it meets the ethical guidelines defined by the APA. B:The proposal is approved, even though the confidentiality of participants is not protected. C:The proposal is denied, because participants will likely suffer psychological harm. D:The proposal is denied, because participants will likely suffer psychological harm and are not provided informed consent. E: The proposal is denied, because Dr. Franklin intends to deceive participants without debriefing them.
The decision of an ethics review committee about Dr. Franklin's research proposal is:
A:The proposal is approved, as it meets the ethical guidelines defined by the APA.
Explanation:
APA (American Psychological Association) has ethical guidelines for conducting psychological researches. The most relevant one in this case is: "follow informed-consent rules." Dr. Franklin clearly ensures that his students give their consents to participate in the eyewitness testimony study by having each sign a form to agree to participate in the research. I am also sure that the confidentiality and privacy of subjects (students who participate in the research) will be highly protected, in line with another guideline of APA, because these issues have not raised any controversy.
Strict construction requires a judge to apply the text only as it is written. Once the court has a clear meaning of the text, no further investigation is required. Judges—in this view—should avoid drawing inferences from a statute or constitution and focus only on the text itself.
