Do The BPS Ethical Principles And Guidelines Place Unreasonable Constraints

Title: Do the BPS ethical principles and guidelines place unreasonable constraints upon research?

Ethical issues in research and particularly socially sensitive research have predominantly represented a focal paradigm within 'social sciences'; the emotive nature of psychological enquiry in both classical and contemporary investigations has moulded the retroactive response of bodies responsible for overseeing the instigation and application of principles and guidelines envisaged to safeguard the discipline and those exposed to it. 'Ethically' controversial neo-classical experiments including Milgrams obedience studies, Zimbardo's de-individualisation studies and Sheridan and Kings obedience replication studies (puppy experiments), involving
Rosnow, Robert Rosenthal 1997). T. Mann cited in Ralph L. Rosnow questions subjects comprehension of both consent forms, and the implications to, and effects upon their legal rights. While the BPS guidelines and ethical principles were to provide a clearer less subjective conceptual framework for the protection of both researcher / discipline and participants there is clear evidence to demonstrate the operationalisation of these guidelines, not only obscures but frequently subjects participants to unwarranted and confusing detail. Specifically Ralph L. Rosnow provides this example of participant misunderstanding "One researcher reported that people believed they had relinquished their right to sue for negligence by signing the form, although that right is legally