Abstracts of recent articles published in Teaching of Psychology

IF 1.9 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Maya C. Rose, Jessica E. Brodsky, Elizabeth S. Che, P. J. Brooks
{"title":"Abstracts of recent articles published in Teaching of Psychology","authors":"Maya C. Rose, Jessica E. Brodsky, Elizabeth S. Che, P. J. Brooks","doi":"10.1177/14757257221144516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Introductory Psychology students rarely learn about unethical biomedical research outside the Tuskegee syphilis study, but these practices were widespread in U.S. public health research (e.g., at the Willowbrook State School researchers infected children with disabilities with hepatitis). Objectives: Replicate and extend Grose-Fifer ’ s research ethics activity by evalu-ating if an online homework and in-class role-play increased awareness of unethical research and abuses at Tuskegee (replication) and Willowbrook (extension) and subsequent changes in human subjects protections. Method: As homework, students read about the studies and wrote statements from perspectives of individuals involved. In class, students read their statements and dis-cussed how outrage led to research conduct regulations. Online pre/posttests asked students why it was important to learn about both studies. Results: At posttest, students were more aware of unethical research at Willowbrook and that Tuskegee led to changes in human subjects protections. Students who completed the role-play activity were less likely to mention abuses for Tuskegee than students who did not participate. Conclusion: We were partially successful in rep-licating and extending Grose-Fifer. Teaching Implications: Research ethics instruction should draw attention to historical precedents and how public outrage and social activism led to increased protections for research participants.","PeriodicalId":45061,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","volume":"22 1","pages":"107 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257221144516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Introductory Psychology students rarely learn about unethical biomedical research outside the Tuskegee syphilis study, but these practices were widespread in U.S. public health research (e.g., at the Willowbrook State School researchers infected children with disabilities with hepatitis). Objectives: Replicate and extend Grose-Fifer ’ s research ethics activity by evalu-ating if an online homework and in-class role-play increased awareness of unethical research and abuses at Tuskegee (replication) and Willowbrook (extension) and subsequent changes in human subjects protections. Method: As homework, students read about the studies and wrote statements from perspectives of individuals involved. In class, students read their statements and dis-cussed how outrage led to research conduct regulations. Online pre/posttests asked students why it was important to learn about both studies. Results: At posttest, students were more aware of unethical research at Willowbrook and that Tuskegee led to changes in human subjects protections. Students who completed the role-play activity were less likely to mention abuses for Tuskegee than students who did not participate. Conclusion: We were partially successful in rep-licating and extending Grose-Fifer. Teaching Implications: Research ethics instruction should draw attention to historical precedents and how public outrage and social activism led to increased protections for research participants.
《心理学教学》最近发表的文章摘要
背景:心理学导论的学生很少在塔斯基吉梅毒研究之外了解到不道德的生物医学研究,但这些做法在美国公共卫生研究中很普遍(例如,在威洛布鲁克州立学校,研究人员感染了肝炎残疾儿童)。目标:通过评估在线作业和课堂角色扮演是否提高了人们对塔斯基吉(复制)和威洛布鲁克(扩展)不道德研究和虐待行为的认识,以及随后对人类受试者保护的改变,复制和扩展Grose Fifer的研究伦理活动。方法:作为家庭作业,学生阅读有关研究的内容,并从相关个人的角度撰写陈述。在课堂上,学生们阅读了他们的陈述,并讨论了愤怒是如何导致研究行为规范的。在线前/后测询问学生为什么了解这两项研究很重要。结果:在后测中,学生们更加意识到威洛布鲁克的不道德研究,以及塔斯基吉导致了人类受试者保护的变化。完成角色扮演活动的学生比没有参与的学生更不可能提及塔斯基吉的虐待行为。结论:我们部分成功地复制和扩展了Grose-Fafer。教学启示:研究伦理教学应该引起人们对历史先例的关注,以及公众的愤怒和社会激进主义如何导致对研究参与者的保护增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT
Psychology Learning and Teaching-PLAT PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信