3.3: APA Ethics Code Standard 8

Learning Objectives

1. Summarize the Section 8 of the American Psychological Association Ethics Code
2. Explain the importance of ethical requirements such as informed consent, debriefing, and scholarly integrity.
3. Describe some pro's and con's of deception, research with nonhuman animals, or other controversial research practices.

APA Ethics Code

The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2021) can be found at https://www.apa.org/ethics/code. The code was originally created in 1953, then updated 11 times. We will focus on Section 8: Research and Publication, but your profession will have a separate ethics code for people are not Psychology majors.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

If you are not majoring in psychology, you are encouraged to search for the ethics code for your future profession. Once you find it, check to see if it has ethical guidelines for research.

Solution

For example, the American Sociological Association several ethics codes (ASA, 2023), which does has several sections that are relevant to conducting and publishing research. The National Association of Social Workers also has a code of ethics (NASW, 2021). While each Ethical Principle could be applied to research, section 5 on professional responsibilities includes a specific section on evaluation and research.

In the box below is Section 8 of the APA Ethics Code in its entirety. Following this box, further detailed is provided related to specific sub-sections.

Section 8 of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2021)

8.01 Institutional Approval

When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate information about their research proposals and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They conduct the research in accordance with the approved research protocol.

8.02 Informed Consent to Research

(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about

1. (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures;
2. (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun;
3. (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing;
4. (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects;
5. (5) any prospective research benefits;
6. (6) limits of confidentiality;
7. (7) incentives for participation; and
8. (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.

(See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07, Deception in Research .)

(b) Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to participants at the outset of the research:

1. (1) the experimental nature of the treatment;
2. (2) the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate;
3. (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made;
4. (4) available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and
5. (5) compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a, Informed Consent to Research .)

8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research

Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images for data collection unless

1. (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm, or
2. (2) the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is obtained during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Deception in Research .)

8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants

(a) When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.

(b) When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, the prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.

8.05 Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research

Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only

1. (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves
   1. (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings;
   2. (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or
   3. (c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected or
2. (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.

8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation

(a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation.

(b) When offering professional services as an inducement for research participation, psychologists clarify the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also Standard 6.05, Barter with Clients/Patients .)

8.07 Deception in Research

(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.

(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing .)

8.08 Debriefing

(a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.

(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.

(c) When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research

(a) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

(b) Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.

(c) Psychologists ensure that all individuals under their supervision who are using animals have received instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.

(e) Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.

(f) Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.

(g) When it is appropriate that an animal's life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.

8.10 Reporting Research Results

(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements .)

(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

8.11 Plagiarism

Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.

8.12 Publication Credit

(a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit .)

(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.

(c) Except under exceptional circumstances, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's doctoral dissertation. Faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit .)

8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data

Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does not preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification

(a) After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such individuals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information.

(b) Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Requesting psychologists obtain prior written agreement for all other uses of the data.

8.15 Reviewers

Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted it.

Institutional Approval

Section 8.01 is related to Institutional Review Boards (IRB). Universities, hospitals, and other institutions that receive support from the federal government must establish an institutional review board (IRB), which is a committee that is responsible for reviewing research protocols for potential ethical problems. An IRB must consist of at least five people with varying backgrounds, including members of different professions, scientists and nonscientists, men and women, and at least one person not otherwise affiliated with the institution (a community member). The IRB helps to make sure that the risks of the proposed research are minimized, the benefits outweigh the risks, the research is carried out in a fair manner, and the informed consent procedure is adequate.

The federal regulations discussed in the previous section (3.2: History of Ethics Cods) distinguish research that poses three levels of risk:

1. Exempt
2. Expedited
3. More than Minimal Risk

Exempt research is the lowest level or risk and includes research on the effectiveness of normal educational activities, the use of standard psychological measures and surveys of a nonsensitive nature that are administered in a way that maintains confidentiality, and research using existing data from public sources. It is called exempt because once approved, it is exempt from regular, continuous review. Expedited research poses a somewhat higher risk than exempt, but still exposes participants to risks that are no greater than minimal risk (those encountered by healthy people in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations). Expedited review is done by by one member of the IRB or by a separate committee under the authority of the IRB that can only approve minimal risk research (many departments of psychology have such separate committees). Finally, research that does not qualify for exempt or expedited review is greater than minimal risk research must be reviewed by the full board of IRB members.

Recently, federal regulations have changed to make applications and review easier for both researchers and the IRB (DeAngelis, 2024). DeAngelis (2024) notes how the Federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects, known as the Common Rule (Health and Human Services) was revised in 2019 that makes more types of studies exempt levels of risk. Now, most typical studies of people are exempt from further review for 20 federal agencies (Office for Human Research Protections, 2025); only studies that could cause harm would face a higher level of review (DeAngelis, 2024). Some of the new exemptions include:

1. Studies in educational studies about educational practices
2. Most self-report measures, educational tests, and observation of public behavior
3. Studies that use brief and non-harmful interventions, such as responding to materials or written scenarios
4. Using secondary data (data collected by someone else)

Researchers expect that research that could cause physical, psychological, or emotional harm would most likely be longitudinal studies that involve vulnerable populations (DeAngelis, 2024). There are also exceptions to these exemptions! First, for self-report measures that ask about sensitive issues (mental health, illegal conduct, sexual activity, finances, discrimination, or other social damaging information) will undergo a limited review; this would take less time than a full IRB review. Second, studies that focus on protected populations will not be exempt. Protected populations are those that are particularly vulnerable or at a risk for coercion, such as prisoners, children, people with mental disabilities, or people who are poor or unhoused. Pregnant people and human fetuses are also considered vulnerable.

DeAngelis (2024) discusses a few other changes to the Common Rule, but they are less related to IRB.

Informed Consent

Standards 8.02 to 8.05 are about informed consent. Again, informed consent means obtaining and documenting people’s agreement to participate in a study, having informed them of everything that might reasonably be expected to affect their decision. Section 8.02(a) lists eight necessary components of informed consent forms. Section 8.02(b) includes additional requirements for studies that include an intervention, rather than recording observational or self-report data only.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Based on Section 8.02(b), what information seems required othat is in addition to what's already required in informed consent forms based on 8.02(a)?

Answer

Section 8.02(b) states that "Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to participants at the outset of the research:

1. The experimental nature of the treatment;
2. The services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate;
3. The means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made;
4. Available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and
5. Compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought."

It seems like when there is an intervention, participants must be told what the different groups are, and how participants were assigned into a control group or who decline to participate or choose to withdraw from the study can receive similar treatment, and how the treatment and their participation is being compensated.

Although the process of obtaining informed consent often involves having participants read and sign a consent form, it is important to understand that this is not all it is. Although having participants read and sign a consent form might be enough when they are competent adults with the necessary ability and motivation, many participants do not actually read consent forms or read them but do not understand them. For example, participants often mistake consent forms for legal documents and mistakenly believe that by signing them they give up their right to sue the researcher (Mann, 1994). Even with competent adults, therefore, it is good practice to tell participants about the risks and benefits, demonstrate the procedure, ask them if they have questions, and remind them of their right to withdraw at any time—in addition to having them read and sign a consent form.

Note also that there are situations in which informed consent is not necessary (see Section 8.05). For example, if you wanted to sit outside a public building and observe whether people hold the door open for people behind them, you would not need to obtain their informed consent. Similarly, if a college instructor wanted to compare two legitimate teaching methods across two sections of his research methods course, they would not need to obtain informed consent from his students.

An additional complexity arises in research on children or adults who cannot provide consent (such as inebriated adults, adults with development disabilities, or when an elderly person no longer makes their own life decisions). According to the Common Rule (Health and Human Services, 2025), people who cannot give official consent must have a guardian provide informed consent and the participant should provide assent, or agreeing verbally to participate after the study is explained to them in terms that they can understand.

Necessary Components of Informed Consent Forms

1. Basic information about the study:
   1. Purpose of the research,
   2. Expected duration of the study
   3. Procedures (including details that could influence whether or not someone would choose to participate)
2. Participants' right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun, and
3. Any foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing [Researchers should avoid any negative consequences for declining or withdrawing in order to no coerce participation.]
4. Reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects
5. Any prospective research benefits; for example, the form can include something like "The results of this research may contribute to scientific understanding of how social media can affect mental health in young adults. Additionally, you will learn about research methods by experiencing research of this type."
6. Limits of confidentiality, which means who will have access to the data (in full or aggregated). Additionally, some states require researchers who learn of child abuse or other crimes to report this information to authorities.
7. Incentives for participation such as money, their name in a raffle, access to the therapy or program, or extra credit. Many universities require participation in several research studies as a requirement in specific courses, so fulfilling the course requirement would be considered the incentive.
8. Finally, provide contact information for the primary researcher for questions about the research and research participants' rights. Studies must also provide an opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.
9. For intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments, the informed consent should also include:
   1. The experimental nature of the treatment;
   2. The services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate;
   3. The means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made;
   4. Available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and
   5. Compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought."

The following is an example informed consent. Can you find the required components for an informed consent form?

Informed Consent

Please take the time to review this consent form and ask any questions you may have before deciding whether to participate.

You are invited to participate in an experimental research study aimed at assessing the effects of social media. This study will take 6 days. The survey will take about 15-20 minutes of your time, which you will take twice, plus a few minutes every day to fill in the daily log of time spent on social media. You will be randomly assigned through our course management system's quiz function into a group that either has unlimited time on social media apps or is asked to limit their social media usage to two hours a day for a length of 5 days. On the first day and the last day, you will be asked to take a survey. Participants’ data will be collected but will be anonymous. The only person with direct access to names will be the professor involved.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You have the right to decline to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time without fear of punishment. If you choose to withdraw, you will not earn extra credit for this activity. However, there are other extra credit opportunities that you could choose instead. There are no foreseeable negative consequences if you choose to decline participation or withdraw from the study. There are other extra credit opportunities that you could choose instead.

You may find it difficult to limit your time on social media. This may result in anxiety or depression. Also, you will need to turn on the tracking function on your phone. Some may feel uncomfortable with allowing this function.

The results of this research may contribute to scientific understanding of how social media can affect mental health in young adults. Additionally, you will learn about research methods by experiencing research of this type.

Your responses will be kept confidential. When the research is completed the research will be presented in a manner that will provide summary results and you will be anonymous.

Participants will be given extra credit. Alternative extra credit opportunities are available on our course management system if you decline to participate or withdraw from the study.

If you have any questions or concerns about the study, you may contact Primary Researcher via email ([e-mail]) or phone [phone]). For further information including final results, you may contact Primary Researcher at the end of the study.

By agreeing to participate in this study, you indicate that YOU ARE 18 YEARS OLD OR OLDER and have read and understood the information provided in this form and voluntarily consent to participate.

18 years old: Yes ______ No _____

Participant Signature: ___________________________ Date: _________________

In the example, did you look for the addition five components needed for research involving experimental treatments? Do you think that this study needs the additional five components?

What do you think?

Do you think that the study described in the sample informed consent needs the additional five components? Why or why not?

Inducements

Much of social science research relies on some sort of reward for participant in the study. As noted in the Necessary Components of Informed Consent box, these rewards an be financial (money or gift cards, participants' chance to win a raffle) or access to services (such as therapy or a program that is being tested). For students, the incentive can be extra credit for students or fulfilling a required course assignment. The concern with any of these is listed in Section 8.06, is to avoid coercion. As noted in many ethics codes, participants should always have the right to withdraw from any study and to decline to participate in the first place. If a worker could not afford food for their family, and participating in a study would provide for that food, does the worker really have a choice to decline to participate? Section 8.06 requires researchers to not offer excessive inducements in order to make participation an option that participants could realistically decline.

Deception

Section 8.07 covers deception in research. Deception of participants in psychological research can take a variety of forms: misinforming participants about the purpose of a study, using confederates (actors who play the part of other participants but are really part of the study), using phony equipment like Milgram’s shock generator, and presenting participants with false feedback about their performance (e.g., telling them they did poorly on a test when they actually did well). Deception also includes not informing participants of the full design or true purpose of the research even if they are not actively misinformed (Sieber et al., 1995). For example, a study on incidental learning, or learning without conscious effort, might involve having participants read through a list of words in preparation for a “memory test” later. Although participants are likely to assume that the memory test will require them to recall the words, it might instead require them to recall the contents of the room or the appearance of the research assistant.

Some researchers have argued that deception of research participants is rarely if ever ethically justified. Among their arguments are that it prevents participants from giving truly informed consent, fails to respect their dignity as human beings, has the potential to upset them, makes them distrustful and therefore less honest in their responding, and damages the reputation of researchers in the field (Baumrind, 1985).

Note, however, that the APA Ethics Code takes a more moderate approach. First, deception must only be used when the research question cannot be answered without the use of deception. Additionally, Section 8.07 allows deception when participants cannot reasonably be expected to be harmed and participants are informed about the deception as soon as possible. This approach acknowledges that not all forms of deception are equally bad. Compare, for example, Milgram’s study in which he deceived his participants in several significant ways that resulted in their experiencing severe psychological stress with an incidental learning study in which a “memory test” turns out to be slightly different from what participants were expecting. It also acknowledges that some scientifically and socially important research questions can be difficult or impossible to answer without deceiving participants. Knowing that a study concerns the extent to which they obey authority, act aggressively toward a peer, or help a stranger is likely to change the way people behave so that the results no longer generalize to the real world.

Debriefing

Section 8.08 is about debriefing. This is the process of informing research participants as soon as possible after they have completed the study of important features of the study and their participation. This could include sharing the purpose of the study, letting them know if they were in the intervention group or placebo group (control group), and correcting any other misconceptions they might have as a result of participating. This debrief is also when any deception would be revealed, and participants would be provided correct information.

Debriefing also involves minimizing harm that might have occurred. For example, an experiment on the effects of being in a sad mood on memory might involve inducing a sad mood in participants by having them think sad thoughts, watch a sad video, and/or listen to sad music. Debriefing would be the time to return participants’ moods to normal by having them think happy thoughts, watch a happy video, or listen to happy music.

Finally, research that involves an intervention may benefit from a manipulation check during the debriefing. A manipulation check is when the researcher asks the participants questions to confirm that they actually experienced the IV as it was intended. For example, in a study in which participants rated the personality of a character that they had read about, a researcher could ask about information from the paragraph to confirm that the participants actually read the information and remembered enough to adequately rate that character's personality based on the information provided.

Thus, while a debriefing might not seem important, it is critical for some research design to ensure honesty from both the researcher and the participant.

Nonhuman Animal Subjects

Although most contemporary research in psychology does not involve nonhuman animal subjects, a significant minority of it does. Social science research that may be likely to use animals include the study of learning and conditioning, behavioral neuroscience, and the development of drug and surgical therapies for psychological disorders. Section 8.09 is about the humane treatment and care of these nonhuman animal subjects. While this is part of the APA's ethics code, the APA must follow the National Institute of Health's (NIH) Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare guidelines, which are created by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (NIH, 2024).

The use of nonhuman animal subjects in psychological research is similar to the use of deception in that there are those who argue that it is rarely, if ever, ethically acceptable (Bowd & Shapiro, 1993). Clearly, nonhuman animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Yet they can be subjected to numerous procedures that are likely to cause them suffering. They can be confined, deprived of food and water, subjected to pain, operated on, and ultimately euthanized. (Of course, they can also be observed benignly in natural or zoo-like settings.) Others point out that psychological research on nonhuman animals has resulted in many important benefits to humans, including the development of behavioral therapies for many disorders, more effective pain control methods, and antipsychotic drugs (Miller, 1985). It has also resulted in benefits to nonhuman animals, including alternatives to shooting and poisoning as means of controlling them.

As with deception, the APA acknowledges that the benefits of research on nonhuman animals can outweigh the costs, in which case it is ethically acceptable. However, researchers must use alternative methods when they can. When they cannot, they must acquire and care for their subjects humanely and minimize the harm to them. For more information on the APA’s position on nonhuman animal subjects, see the website of the APA’s CARE, which stands for Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (APA, 2024).

Scholarly Integrity

Standards 8.10 to 8.15 are about scholarly integrity. These include the obvious points that researchers must not fabricate data or plagiarize. Plagiarism means using others’ words or ideas without proper acknowledgment. Proper acknowledgment generally means indicating direct quotations with quotation marks and providing a citation to the source of any quotation or idea used. The remaining standards make some less obvious but equally important points. Researchers should not publish the same data a second time as though it were new, they should share their data with other researchers, and as peer reviewers, they should keep the unpublished research they review confidential. Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific knowledge. In this day and age, anyone can post a research report online. We rely on scientific peers to ensure that the study is high quality and that the results do not appear to be fabricated. To learn more about what peer reviewers are looking for, Wiley Author Services provides an online guide (Wiley, 2025).

Academic careers are built on publishing research, so properly and ethically giving credit to the people who contributed the most intellectually (not necessarily the most time) to a project is critical. The order of authors’ names on published research traditionally reflect the importance of each person’s contribution to the research. It would be unethical, for example, to include as an author someone who had made only minor contributions to the research (e.g., analyzing some of the data) or for a faculty member to make himself or herself the first author on research that was largely conducted by a student.

What do you think?

A fun application of the APA ethic code (APA, 2021) could be to review controversial research studies, and see if you think that they would be able to be conducted with today's ethics code. A research to start might be this article about controversial psychological studies (Jarrett, 2014).

Moral Principles

As we wrap up this chapter on ethics, let's touch on one more topic: Moral Principles

---

References

American Psychological Association. (2021, January 1). Ethnical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index

American Psychological Association, (2024). Committee on Animal Research and Ethics. https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/index

American Sociological Association. (2023, September 13). Ethics. https://www.asanet.org/about/ethics/

Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165–174.

Bowd, A. D., & Shapiro, K. J. (1993). The case against animal laboratory research in psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 133–142.

DeAngelis, T. (2024). A lighter load for researchers, 55(7), 78-87.

Health and Human Services (2025, June 11). 45 Code of Federal Regulation 46. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations...-46/index.html

Jarrett, C. (2014, September 19). The 10 most controversial psychology studies ever published. The British Psychological Society. https://www.bps.org.uk/research-dige...ever-published

Mann, T. (1994). Informed consent for psychological research: Do subjects comprehend consent forms and understand their legal rights? Psychological Science, 5, 140–143.

Miller, N. E. (1985). The value of behavioral research on animals. American Psychologist, 40, 423–440.

National Association of Social Workers (2021). Code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/about/...code-of-ethics

National Institute of Health (2024, October 30). Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare. https://olaw.nih.gov/resources/tutorial/iacuc.htm

Office for Human Research Protections. (2025, June 5). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects ('Common Rule'). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations...ule/index.html

Sieber, J. E., Iannuzzo, R., & Rodriguez, B. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: Have they changed in 23 years? Ethics & Behavior, 5, 67–85.

Wiley Author Services (2025). Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript. https://authorservices.wiley.com/Rev...anuscript.html