| Date | November 2020 | Marks available | 6 | Reference code | 20N.Paper 3.HL.TZ0.2 |
| Level | HL only | Paper | Paper 3 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Describe | Question number | 2 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
The stimulus material below is based on a study on the effect of social exclusion on prosocial behaviour. Prosocial behaviour is defined as behaviour that is performed to benefit others, rather than oneself.
A person’s feeling of not being part of a social group may affect that person’s behaviour. The hypothesis of this study was that perception of social exclusion would decrease prosocial behaviour.
The convenience sample consisted of psychology university students (N = 26) who signed up for the study to gain course credit. There was an equal number of males and females from multiple ethnic backgrounds.
The participants signed consent forms, but the researchers did not inform participants about the true purpose of the study until afterwards. No participant was named in the research report.
Individually, participants completed a personality test and were paid two dollars, after which they received a randomly assigned personality type description. These allocated them to either condition 1 (social exclusion) or condition 2 (social inclusion). Participants in condition 1 received negative feedback on the personality test such as “You are the type that might end up alone later in life”. Participants in condition 2 received positive feedback such as “You are the type that might have many friends throughout life”.
The researcher then left the room for two minutes, but before leaving she pointed to a box with a sign reading “Student Emergency Fund” and said to the participant that they could donate a small amount of the two dollars if they wanted but it was up to them. After two minutes the researcher returned and debriefed each participant.
The measure of prosocial behaviour in this study was defined as whether the participants gave a donation or not. Only five participants in condition 1 donated, compared to all participants in condition 2.
The researchers concluded that the perception of future social exclusion resulted in temporarily negative emotions that prevented some participants in condition 1 from acting in a prosocial manner.
Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.
Markscheme
Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study: Award [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
- Consent: The participants signed a consent form before the start of the study. In principle, participants should be fully informed about the aim and procedures of a study before it starts. However, in this experiment deception was used because it would be impossible to conduct this experiment if the hypothesis was revealed to participants before the study. Informed consent is a requirement in all research and in line with ethical guidelines in psychological research.
- Debriefing: The participants were debriefed after completing the study. The researchers would have informed participants about the true purpose of the study and the results they expected to find, in this case about a possible relationship between social exclusion and decrease in prosocial behaviour. They should also explain the risk of possible psychological harm in the social exclusion group and offer help to participants who wanted it.
- Anonymity: Participants in a study must be sure that nobody can identify them in research reports. This is particularly important in socially sensitive studies such as this, because of the risk of self-stigmatization. The stimulus material specifically mentions that participants were not named in the research report.
Explain if further ethical considerations could be applied. Award [1] per relevant point made, up to a maximum of [3].
- Protection from harm: (1) In a study like this on a quite sensitive issue that could potentially cause some psychological harm to participants, the researchers should inform them after the study that they could contact the researchers if they have any questions. (2)The researchers should make sure that participants in the social exclusion condition did not risk any long-term psychological harm after the unpleasant experience, for example by offering a follow-up session after the experiment to those who asked for it. A thorough debriefing session could also serve as a way to fully inform participants about the aim of the study and at the same time touch upon the ethical issues involved in the social exclusion group.
- Deception: Deception was used in this experiment. Candidates should explain and justify the use of deception in the study, for example, explaining that a research ethics application form to an ethics committee could ensure that deception is acceptable in this particular study.
- Right to withdraw: A further ethical consideration to apply could be to inform students during debriefing that they could still withdraw their data. However, participants in this study are students who receive course credit for their participation so they might not feel they can withdraw their data because they have given consent. However, students should be informed that they are not obliged to participate if they would rather not.
- Confidentiality: The researchers could ensure that participants knew that the data would be kept in secure storage and destroyed afterwards to ensure confidentiality.
- Any other relevant point.
Examiners report
This question was overall well answered, and many candidates scored full marks. Most candidates correctly identified and described consent, confidentiality, and debriefing as applied ethical consideration in the study. For further ethical considerations candidates typically referred to anonymity, confidentiality, and protection from harm. A number of candidates stated that both informed consent and deception were used in the study suggesting that the concept of informed consent is not fully understood. There was also some confusion in relation to anonymity and confidentiality.
Stronger candidates divided their response according to "applied ethical considerations" and "ethical considerations that could be applied". Such candidates also provided appropriate explanations related to ethical considerations that could be applied in the study and referred competently to the stimulus paper, for example, giving an explanation of how researchers could protect the participants instead of just listing protection from harm, giving opportunity to contact researchers after the study or providing information of how to get support if needed. Many of these candidates also spotted that light deception was used in the study and explained why it was necessary in this particular study. Such responses mostly said that participants were informed about the true purpose of the study during debriefing, and some suggested that researchers should have asked permission to run the experiment from an ethics committee.
Weaker candidates only identified a few relevant ethical considerations and therefore did not earn many marks for this question. A problem for weaker candidates in general was that they did not pay attention to the command term and merely listed ethical considerations, sometimes only in a rudimentary bullet list. Weaker candidates often spent time listing a number of possible psychological problems that participants could experience after the experiment instead of writing about possible ways to avoid causing harm to participants.
