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 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. Requirements Established by Board at USU. Main Purpose is to Protect the Rights of Human Subjects. Researchers are Required to 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 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. Research Must be Voluntary.

IRB – Institutional Review Board Requirements Established by 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 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? 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: 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 Zimbardo’s Experiment –He conducted a Field Experiment/Trials Milgram’s Experiment Milgram’s Experiment –He conducted a single shot or one shot experiment  Intervention – Post Test  X-----Y Ash’s Experiment 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 Independent Variable –Social Role - Position of Power Dependent Variable 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 recruited 75 college students and selected the 21 who were most “emotionally stable” He randomly divided them into two groups (guard and prisonners) He randomly divided them into two groups (guard and prisonners) He placed them in a facility that looked very much like a prison He placed them in a facility that looked very much like a prison He instructed them to act as “guards” and “prisonners” He instructed them to act as “guards” and “prisonners” He observed their behavior 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 Independent Variable –Concept – Authority Figure’s Power –Indicator – Presence of Authority Figure  Varied proximity to authority figure Dependent Variable 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. 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 used a classical experimental design. He recruited college students and divided them into experimental groups and control groups. 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 Results –Most of the subjects did fall to group pressure. Asch’s was able to do his research successfully without causing harm to subjects. 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. The goal of the IRB is to help you find ways to complete your research without harming your participants.

Contact Information Dr. Carol Albrecht Dr. Carol Albrecht Assessment Specialist Assessment Specialist Utah State Extension Utah State Extension