Download Advocacy - Utah State University Extension

IRB – Institutional Review Board
Purpose
 Protect the Right of Human Subjects participating in research

Protect VULNERABLE populations
 This includes children, mentally ill, persons with disabilities, institutionalized
individuals etc.

Primary motivations for the formation of the IRB
 The Holocaust
 Nazis did horrible experiments in the name of research
 Tuskegee Experiment
 American researchers refused to provide treatment to those
suffering from syphilis in the name of research
The Nazi Experiments were mostly medical
experiments, but also impacted the emotional
and social well-being of prisonners.
IRB – Institutional Review Board

Requirements Established by Board at USU.

Main Purpose is to Protect the Rights of Human Subjects.
Researchers are Required to
– Make Certain Possible Benefits Exceed Possible Harm For
The Participants in the Program
– Minimize Harm for Participants
– Inform Potential Participants of all Possible Harm
– Never Coerce Anyone into Participating. Participation in
Research Must be Voluntary.
IRB – Institutional Review Board

Requirements Established by Board
– The IRB Does a Cost/Benefits Analysis of
Harm in the Following Areas:
 Social Harm
 Physical Harm
 Psychological Harm
IRB – Institutional Review Board

Benefits for the Researcher
– Why should you work with the IRB?
 Ethical reasons – ensure safety of your participants
 Legal reasons – ensure that participants or others
don’t sue you.
 Practical reasons – It’s required!
IRB – Institutional Review Board

How do you work with the IRB?
– Go to their USU website, and follow the
directions.
– Contact the IRB office at Utah State. It is
under the direction of True Fox. (name?)
Is it necessary?

There are examples of “good” research done by “good” researchers
where participants did experience great harm. These include:
– Physical Harm
 Tuskegee Experiment
– Psychological Harm (Emotional Trauma)
 Milgram Experiment
 Zimbardo’s Experiment
– Social Harm (Reputation/Good Name)
 Study of Gays/Homosexuals
Examples – Two Famous Experiments
Both Milgram and Zimbardo were concerned about what happened in
Germany during the Holocaust. They wanted to know if such harm
could occur here in the US. Ironically, they harmed participants in
their journey to answer this questions.
Milgram did research on Obedience to Authority. He wanted to know if
Americans would blindly follow authority figures as some German
citizens followed their leaders.
Zimbardo did research on Social Roles and their impact on human
interactions. He wanted to know if those who were given great
power over others (i.e., guards) would abuse that power.
Could the atrocities that
occurred in Germany
ever happen in
the US?
Examples of Famous Experiments

Zimbardo’s Experiment
– He conducted a Field Experiment/Trials

Milgram’s Experiment
– He conducted a single shot or one shot experiment
 Intervention – Post Test
 X-----Y

Ash’s Experiment
– Was a third study that was able to answer similar questions
without causing harm.
– He conducted a classical experiment
 Pre-test -----Intervention-----Post-test
 Y----X-----Y
Zimbardo’s Quasi Field
Experiment

Independent Variable
– Social Role - Position of Power

Dependent Variable
– Behavior of Participants
How does a person’s social role influence their
behavior toward others??
Zimbardo
Prisoners Dilemma

He set up a simulated prison situation
 He recruited 75 college students and selected the 21 who were
most “emotionally stable”
 He randomly divided them into two groups (guard and
prisonners)
 He placed them in a facility that looked very much like a prison
 He instructed them to act as “guards” and “prisonners”
 He observed their behavior
Zimbardo
Prisoners Dilemma

Results of this field experiment
 Behavior of guards
 Initially prisoners rebelled when mistreated
 Prisoners became demoralized
 Prisoners suffered emotional anguish for some time
afterward
 Behavior of guards
 1/3 Guards demanded degrading behavior from prisonners
(i.e., cleaning toilets
 1/3 Guards were fair but tough
 1/3 Guards were kind – but didn’t help with other guards
 The treatment became so abusive that the experiment was
discontinued after only 6 days.
 Some guards felt considerable guilt for some time afterward
Quasi Field Experiment


Milgram’s Experiment
Independent Variable
– Concept – Authority Figure’s Power
– Indicator – Presence of Authority Figure
 Varied proximity to authority figure
Dependent Variable
– Concept – Conformity to Authority
– Indicator – Whether or not they would follow authority figure’s
directions to shock others when they gave the “wrong answer”
to a “test”.
In reality the subjects were not shocking anyone. They were
just led to believe there was someone behind a curtain who
was receiving a shock. They did hear a voice, and the voice
even pleaded with them to stop.
Subjects experiences emotional trauma for some time
afterwards. They felt like “murderers”, and felt great guilt as a
result of their actions.
Asch’s Experiment

Asch also wanted to know if Americans
would fall to group pressure and go
against what they knew to be true.

He used a classical experimental design.

He recruited college students and divided
them into experimental groups and control
groups.
They were shown three lines
(A,B,C) and then shown line S.
Their job was to determine
which line was the same length
as line S (A,B, or C). The task
was simple and the answer was
obvious.
Members of the experimental
group were placed into groups
where 7 to 8 confederates
publicly voiced their answer
prior to the subject. They all
gave the wrong answer.
Asch’s Experiment

Results
– Most of the subjects did fall to group pressure.

Asch’s was able to do his research successfully
without causing harm to subjects.

The goal of the IRB is to help you find ways to
complete your research without harming your
participants.
Contact Information
Dr. Carol Albrecht
 Assessment Specialist
 Utah State Extension
 979-777-2421
 [email protected]
