Study: Canli- Amygdala Activation

Informed Consent- Given By ALL they Volunteered

Debriefing- YES
Deception- Unaware of the 3 week follow Up
Confidentiality- Yes
Role of researcher- No Problems
Voluntary Participation- Yes
Right to Withdrawal- Yes
Protection- Possible seeing such highly emotional images could impose fear or memory on pps

Study:Dement & Kleitman- Dreams REM

Informed Consent- Participants All Gave Informed Consent ( not stated how pp’s were sampled)
Debriefing- Did not talk about debriefing other than the interviews after woken in REM or NREM
Deception- Participants were not told if they were in REM or NREM while being woken, one
participant, WD was mislead about which stage of sleep he was woken in.
Confidentiality- We know the initials to our participants, so anonymity was not taken- NO
Role of researcher- Dement was bias as he was a student/professor at the same university. He
may have known the participants.
Voluntary Participation- We are unsure how the participants were sampled, but they did show up
for “bed time” at 7 so they had given consent to the sleep project. We are just unsure of how
much detail they were given
Right to Withdrawal- Some participants withdrew after only 1 night in the sleep study. Dement
kept their data as comparison only and it is not used in the results
Protection- Causing participants to wake up multiple times a night could have caused sleep
deprivation in some way, making the next day difficult to navigate.

Study: Schacter & Singer- Two Factor Theory of Emotion

Informed Consent- All 185 participants gave informed consent to injections of Suproxin, NOT
Epinephrine. They were intro to psychology students and received credits on their final exam for
participation. (ethics on that?) If students do not wish to participate, the professor must supply
the students with an equal opportunity to obtain the credits in scholastic form.
Debriefing- Participants were debriefed about the real aim
Deception- A Stooge was used in each classroom and therefore is deception. If you were in the
misinformed or ignorant classroom you were told fake or incorrect information about the
symptoms of epinephrine/saproxin.
Confidentiality- Anonymity Yes, Confidentiality No, we know the Year, the class the pp’s were in,
that they were all males. We could narrow it down with records if needed
Role of researcher- Researchers were not giving the injections nor were they a stooge. Not
much interaction
Voluntary Participation- YES
Right to Withdrawal- YES, many pp’s in the Anger classroom figured out something was going
and and left the project
Protection- Although pp’s were tested by a doctor prior to the study, injecting epinephrine
changes a person’s biology therefore imposing some harm. In the case that there are long term
effects, the researchers must provide those services. Also, the anger classroom is a negative
emotion that the researcher created in the participant. Yes, they were debriefed but you know as
well as I do that a negative situation or environment can affect you long term.

Study: Andrade- Doodleing

Informed Consent- participants were not able to give full informed consent since they were
given an unexpected test of places.
Debriefing- YES
Deception- Deception was necessary to keep demand characteristics low and to test attention
Confidentiality- YES
Role of researcher- NO ROLE
Voluntary Participation- YEs they volunteered
Right to Withdrawal- YES
Protection- YES

Study: Baron-Cohen- Theory of Mind

Informed Consent- YEs, Some responded to an ad in a magazine for Autism and otheres were
recruited and asked in public libraries and college campuses.
Debriefing- Yes, wasn’t too necessary. PP’s just took a quiz
Deception- Non
Confidentiality- Yes
Role of researcher- None
Voluntary Participation- Yes
Right to Withdrawal- Yes
Protection- Yes

Study: Laney et al. False Memory

Informed Consent- Volunteers from a college course and received course credit for it.
Debriefing- Pp’s in Experiment 1 were debriefed
Deception- Yes, Full Aim in Experiment 1 was not given. No for Experiment 2
Confidentiality- Yes
Role of researcher- N/A
Voluntary Participation- yes
Right to Withdrawal- yes, no one withdrawed
Protection- Although someone now believing they liked a certain vegetable after the experiment
and not before does impose some change on the participant.

Study: Bandura et al- Social Learning Theory- Aggression

Informed Consent- These were underage children and the parents were not asked if their
children could participate. The nursery school teacher gave consent
Debriefing- No debriefing occurs
Deception- The use of children with no parental consent is tricky and would be completely illegal
today, especially with the content of this study. One could argue that by not speaking to the
parents about the nature of the study and not debriefing about what happened in the study, the
researcher was in fact deceiving the parents in some way.
Confidentiality- We do not have the name of the students but know which university nursery they
attended.
Role of researcher- The researcher was not part of the actual experiment
Voluntary Participation- The children did not have a choice in the matter, the decision was left up
to the teacher
Right to Withdrawal- The children were not made aware that they could leave or refuse to be in
the experiment. Parents were not made aware of it.
Protection- This experiment required modeling aggressive behavior. Children that were not
already aggressive were a part of the aggressive groups and therefore we imposed aggressive
behavior that could stick and affect the child and family long term.

Study: Saavedra & Silverman- Phobias

Informed Consent- The boy and his mother sought out Saavedra and Silverman, at least the
sought out help so they gave consent to treatment
Debriefing- They were aware of all parts of the study
Deception- No deception involved
Confidentiality- yes
Role of researcher- Good Rapport and therefore could be bias
Voluntary Participation- Yes
Right to Withdrawal- yes
Protection- No harm was done in a negative way although the definition says impose change,
therefore the change was GOODm but was present.

Study: Pepperberg- Parrot Learning

Informed Consent- Pepperberg was the owner of the Parrot and gave consent
Harm: No harm or punishments, only reward system
Housing: He was housed in a cage by himself. Birds are social animals
Numbers: Only 1 bird used.
Food: No food deprivation

Study: Milgram- obedience

Informed Consent- Yes, they volunteered and then passed a supplemental interview, but they
consented to a study on Learning and Memory
Debriefing- Yes, when the experiment stopped, all participants were debriefed
Deception- Yes, the entire study including the stooges was deception. This included
Confidentiality- NOT Fully. This study was documented via video observations. The content is
available on the internet and this included documents later where participants disclosed their
participation in an interview. The document itself did not name the participants.
Role of researcher- Observer
Voluntary Participation- They responded to an ad in the news paper
Right to Withdrawal- They were told that they would get paid just by showing up and that they
could leave at any moment. During the experiment, when the participants were requesting to
stop, the proctor’s job was to show a dominant role and told the participants that they could not
leave the experiments. It wasn’t until all prods were stated that they were allowed to stop.
Protection- Psychological Harm, many men showed signs of sweating and shaking, crying and
much more

Study: Piliavin- Subway Samaritans

Informed Consent- No Consent, Naiive Participants To this day, none of the participants could
tell you for sure that they were a part of this experiment.
Debriefing- No debriefing occurred
Deception- Yes, participants were made to believe another individual was in distress when he
was not. Also didn’t even know they were a part of the experiment
Confidentiality- Yes! The study actually states that they didn’t even have a target population or
count the actual race of pp’s it was based on previous research about the average population in
that area.
Role of researcher- Not part of the study, students from Columbia performed the experiment
Voluntary Participation- No they did not know they were a part of the experiment and did not
ask, they randomly ventured into that exact train that day and become subjects
Right to Withdrawal- The train doors were closed and subjects were not allowed to leave and
couldn’t even in an emergency.. Which they thought they were in. Many participants moved to
the adjacent cart and showed their uncomfortable nature.
Protection- Some might have been traumatized by the event, an ill man falling or drunk man
lying in the middle of the subway cart.

Study: Yamamoto et al. Altruism & Helping

Informed Consent- Approved by animal care committee
Caging: Normal Housing with Mother Baby Pairs- social animals
Housing: they were in their natural habitat. These primates were a part of previous studies and
grew up doing experiments. This was natural to them
Numbers: 2 primates housed together in mother pairs
No Harm: There were ni intense treatments or punishments
Food: No food deprivation,