Abstract
This study investigated the views of 100 student research participants, 107 psychologist investigators, and 45 members of Institutional Review Boards (Human Subject Committees). Participants in these three groups responded to questions regarding the ethical parameters of a fictitious psychological research protocol. Psychologist investigators' endorsements are similar to those of Institutional Review Board members when the debriefing procedure of the protocol and its potential benefits to others are questioned. The views of psychologist investigators are similar to those of students when the topic of risks to participant is at issue. Implications of these findings for review of research proposals in psychology by Institutional Review Boards are discussed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
