SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Flick, C. (2016). Informed consent and the Facebook emotional manipulation study. Research Ethics, 12, 14–48. doi:10.1177/1747016115599568

Learning Objective: 1-2: How to think critically about research ethics, including understanding and applying the ethical principles and standards of your discipline.

Summary: This article describes a study conducted through Cornell University in collaboration with the social media site Facebook. The author argues that the study was unethical.

Questions to Consider:

  1. Why does the author argue that the Facebook emotional manipulation study referenced in the article was unethical? Do you agree or disagree?
  2. If you were on an IRB board reviewing a replication of the Facebook study, what modifications would you recommend in order for the study to comply with ethical principles and standards?
  3. According to the author, what is the ethical gap between university- and industry-led research? What are ways to close this gap?

Journal Article 2: Loftus, E. F., & Greenspan, R. L. (2017). If I’m certain, is it true? Accuracy and confidence in eyewitness testimony. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18, 1–2. doi:10.1177/1529100617699241

Learning Objective: 1-2: How to think critically about research ethics, including understanding and applying the ethical principles and standards of your discipline.

Summary: The authors respond to a new manuscript by Wixted and Wells about the relationship between confidence and accuracy as it applies to eyewitness testimony. The authors also summarize findings from a 2011 survey on eyewitness identification procedures implemented by police departments.

Questions to Consider:

  1. According to the authors, what is Wixted and Wells’ main point about the relationship between confidence and accuracy?
  2. What are the key findings of the 2011 survey on eyewitness identification procedures implemented by police departments?
  3. What conclusions do the authors of this current article make?