As with all research in psychology, researchers must follow ethical standards.  Health psychologists who study stress have a particularly difficult problem – how does one study stress without violating “undue stress or harm?” In order to determine cause and effect relationships, experimenters must manipulate the level of stress, but ethical considerations must be followed.  In addition, informed consent must be obtained.  In some cases, deception by omission is used to minimize demand characteristics.  But is some cases one may question whether the participant really understands the potential implications of consenting to the study.

In a study by Speisman, the researcher wanted to see how cognitive appraisal of a situation would affect one’s stress response – specifically, heart rate and galvanic skin response. The participants were told that they would watch a documentary while their physiological responses were measured.  They did not realize, however, that they would be watching a traditional circumcision ceremony of a young boy.  In one condition, they heard the original noise of the documentary, including the boy’s screaming and crying.  In another condition, there was a dry intellectual explanation of the ceremony. In the final condition, the narration was very positive about how the boy was happy to finally be a man.  The study showed that participants had a much lower physiological response to the second and third condition.  Cognition appears to be a mediating factor in stress.

However, there are two concerns.  First, the researchers used deception.  They did not tell the participants the true aim of the study in order to control for demand characteristics.  Although it was true that they could withdraw at any point, it is also possible that since they were connected to equipment for measuring GSR and heart-rate, they did not feel that they could freely do so. Secondly, there is a concern about the level of stress.  The standard is that a participant should not feel more stress than they would feel in daily life.  The level of stress here could be considered quite high. But without a higher level of stress, it would not be possible to effectively measure the role of cognition in mediating stress.

In a study by Cohen, the researchers wanted to see how one’s level of stress might increase one’s susceptibility to the common cold virus. Informed consent was obtained. The participants knew that they would be asked to fill out a questionnaire about their recent level of stress, and then to inhale either the common cold virus or a placebo and then be quarantined for five days. The placebo is another form of deception.  It is used to control for the placebo effect - that is, that they might develop cold symptoms simply because they think that they inhaled the virus.  By using a placebo, they can show that the treatment alone did not lead to the results, but that in fact, higher levels of stress increased the likelihood of developing a cold.

Although consent was given, getting a cold could potentially lead to more complicated health problems.  This is, however, unlikely, so the researchers do not cause “undue stress or harm.”  However, it is not really possible to “withdraw” at any point in the study. Although a participant can remove their data, if they develop the cold, there is no turning back.  This is something that, of course, would be explained in the briefing.

Finally, issues of consent and the right to withdraw are seen in a study by Koch et al.  Koch studied over 7000 Swedish families over a period of three years to see if family stress had an effect on childhood obesity in five-year-olds. The study found a correlation between the overall level of stress in the family and obesity. For this study, parents consented for both themselves and their children to be studied.  Although this is standard practice, there is some concern about parents consenting to the study of their children.  However, in this case, the data that was obtained could be used to help the health of their children – so the cost-benefit analysis shows that concerns about consent for minors may not be problematic.  

Participants were given the right to withdraw from the study.  This means that at any point in the three years, they could stop filling in the questionnaires and have their data removed from the research.  In this study, there was a high attrition rate among participants of lower SES. This means that by following this ethical standard, the study ended up having a sampling bias.  In the study, Koch acknowledges this bias and that this may, in fact, mean that some of the conclusions that were drawn may not be generalizable to that group.

Ethical considerations are made to protect the participants.  However, in the study of stress, the ability to manipulate the level of stress is important, meaning that a cost-benefit analysis is important and shows why approval by an ethics board is necessary.  Deception in the form of placebos – or in omitting some information about the study – is often used to control for demand characteristics.  And the right to withdraw, particularly in longitudinal research, has the potential to influence the validity of the findings.