According to the article these were the criteria for participation: 

"Boys were included in the study if they (a) were
enrolled in a first-grade (33%), second-grade (44%), or third grade
(23%) class; (b) did not have a video-game system in
their home; (c) had a parent interested in purchasing a system
for their use; and (d) had no history of developmental, behavioral,
medical, or learning problems. "

And

"Only boys whose baseline scores indicated academic achievement within normal 
limits and no significant behavior problems were randomized."


I bet the researchers gave away the gaming system because they had no use for 
them after the study so they could double as incentives. Given the everyday 
occurrence of gaming systems giving one as an incentive does not seem 
unethical. Also, the value seem appropriate (about $100-$150) for parents and 
children have to fill out multiple measures twice (including a diary). It would 
certainly be a good idea to let the parents know what the study found but that 
would occur much later.

Marie

****************************************************
Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D.
Department Chair and Associate Professor of Psychology
Kaufman 168, Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA 17013
Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971
http://users.dickinson.edu/~helwegm/
****************************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Froman [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 1:02 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] An interesting ethical research question

I just brought it up as an interesting ethical issue I hadn't considered 
before. I didn't say that it would necessarily be judged unethical. If you had 
a drug for an illness and were putting it through clinical trials on a similar 
basis (we will give the drug to the control group at the end if it works), 
would you still give it to them if you found that it caused side effects of the 
nature described for the video games in this study? I think if we do take the 
results of our research seriously we would take the outcomes more seriously. It 
may well be that parents were informed of the outcome of the study during 
debriefing. The specifics of the debriefing weren't covered in the article so I 
don't know if they had done the data analysis by the time they gave the 
debriefing or if it consisted more of a statement of the hypothesis and the 
method they used to test it. If it did include the results, I guess they would 
have said, "here is your PS3 but given what we just found, use it carefully". I 
wonder if the study couldn't have been done without confusing the compensation 
for participation with the treatment.

1) Generalization may be problematic but that is more a methodological than an 
ethical concern and it wasn't of interest to me. 

2) I don't think that my interest in the ethics of this particular case would 
mean that I am interested in the ethics of those other non-research-related 
activities. I was particularly interested in the mixed message of giving as 
compensation something that your study found to have a detrimental impact. You 
can imagine for yourself other cases of giving to your control group as 
compensation something that your study demonstrated to have a negative effect. 
I think it would at least seem humorously incongruous.

3) Jim's point would seem to indicate that causal studies should have a lower 
ethical threshold than correlational or epidemiological studies because of 
their greater persuasive appeal. I haven't heard that argument before but it is 
also thought-provoking. It does probably ascribe to non-scientists more 
critical thinking about correlation and causation than they may possess. When 
many correlational studies are interpreted causally in the popular press, it 
makes you wonder how much more of an impact a truly causal study would have on 
parental decision-making.

4) The authors do say this was the first such study to randomly assign 
participants to conditions so, of course, it is important to do such a study to 
take the evidence beyond correlational. However, was it necessary to provide 
the game as compensation for the study? Given the cost of the game systems, 
that seems a little pricey as compensation for basically just completing a few 
tests. I think, in the future, it might be possible, as part of the informed 
consent, to provide information from this study and others suggesting possible 
academic outcomes and to tell participants they will be involved in a drawing 
for a game system for which some will win and some will not (so that not 
everyone gets one at the end of the study). 

5) It was the parents who gave their informed consent in this study and I have 
no problem with that. My concern may not even be so much with the ethics of the 
study as with the seemingly hypocritical position this particular compensation 
scheme put researchers in. I don't think, in any case, we generally want to be 
giving the treatment as a compensation if the "treatment" is shown during the 
course of the study to have detrimental effects. Of course, they didn't know 
for sure before they began that it would have detrimental effects but that is 
why I think it might not be good to offer the treatment as compensation. What 
if the treatment is worthless (some forms of counseling) or detrimental?

Rick

Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences 
Professor of Psychology 
Box 3055
John Brown University 
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR  72761 
[email protected]
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Clark [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 11:22 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] An interesting ethical research question

Hi

1.  Where on earth did they find kids who did NOT have video games?  Would 
results generalize to kids in general?  Do results generalize to long-term use 
(i.e., does novelty wear off?).  For how long would it be reasonable to expect 
that kids would remain non-users without the study?

2.  I guess if Rick is concerned about the ethics of this study he would also 
have to be concerned about the ethics of: (a) parents buying videogames for 
their kids, (b) kids being allowed to spend their earned money on video games, 
and (c) any other way that kids could get a video game.  That is, kids 
receiving videogame for participating in research would appear to be exposed to 
no greater a "risk" than what they face in everyday life.  This assumes that 
appropriate criterion for risk is "that experienced in everyday life," rather 
than "zero risk."

3.  The knowledge gained from such studies is of tremendous value in addressing 
concerns about inferring causality from nonexperimental data.  That is, such 
studies should allow for more persuasive appeals to parents, resulting in less 
harm overall to children from excessive videogame play than without such 
studies.

4.  There is no (validly) known risk until such studies are done, so how can it 
be unethical to engage in such studies?  Presumably this consideration would 
change with accumulation of more evidence.

5.  Presumably it is the parents who are giving their consent.  Shouldn't their 
judgment, suitably informed, be respected?

Take care
Jim

James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
[email protected]

>>> Rick Froman <[email protected]> 09-Mar-10 9:23:06 AM >>>
In medical research, sometimes people are recruited into experiments with the 
promise that, if they are in the control group, when the experiment ends, 
everyone will get the treatment if it is effective. That seems only ethical.

But what about this case?

Weis and Cerankosky (2010) recently published a study, "Effects of Video-Game 
Ownership on Young Boys' Academic and Behavioral Functioning: A Randomized, 
Controlled 
Study<http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/17/0956797610362670>" (link 
available only to subscribers or APS members) online before print in 
Psychological Science (Feb 18) the abstract of which is as follows:

Young boys who did not own video games were promised a video-game system and 
child-appropriate games in exchange for participating in an "ongoing study of 
child development." After baseline assessment of boys' academic achievement and 
parent- and teacher-reported behavior, boys were randomly assigned to receive 
the video-game system immediately or to receive the video-game system after 
follow-up assessment, 4 months later. Boys who received the system immediately 
spent more time playing video games and less time engaged in after-school 
academic activities than comparison children. Boys who received the system 
immediately also had lower reading and writing scores and greater 
teacher-reported academic problems at follow-up than comparison children. 
Amount of video-game play mediated the relationship between video-game 
ownership and academic outcomes. Results provide experimental evidence that 
video games may displace after-school activities that have educational value 
and may interfere with the development of reading and writing skills in some 
children.

They mention later in the article that parents were debriefed but it isn't 
clear if they were made aware of the experimental findings or just of the 
hypothesis and methods.

So, is it ethical to give everyone a treatment that has been found (in an 
experiment, not just a correlational study) to be detrimental? And was the 
compensation offered not only coercive but, based on the experimental findings, 
possibly detrimental to educational outcomes?

Rick
Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055
x7295
[email protected] 
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman 

Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought 
to his steps."


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=1155
 
or send a blank email to 
leave-1155-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=1158
or send a blank email to 
leave-1158-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a4468797f&n=T&l=tips&o=1159
or send a blank email to 
leave-1159-13234.b0e864a6eccfc779c8119f5a44687...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1161
or send a blank email to 
leave-1161-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to