What steps can you take to Minimise the risk of psychological harm to participants in a psychology research?

According to the WHS Act, organisations are legally obligated to protect both their employees’ physical and psychological health. In other words, just as organisations must do what is reasonably practical to eliminate and reduce the risk of physical hazards, the same must be done for psychological hazards. 

Given the past 18 months have been anything but smooth thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, most people have experienced high levels of stress and anxiety. Even as we start returning to work and life resumes some sort of normalcy, those feelings don't just disappear and navigating 'the new normal' can be equally difficult for some. While companies can't necessarily relieve personal stress, they can work to ensure that additional stress is not created by work. 

Before we discuss how to manage psychological risk, let's address what psychological risk is and common psychological hazards. Psychological risk is the possibility for psychological injury to occur when exposed to a hazard. Hazards from a psychological perspective are situations or factors that could increase the likelihood of employees experiencing a stress response - essentially a physical, mental or emotional reaction. While a stress response is not considered a psychological injury itself, excessive or prolonged stress can often lead to psychological or even physical injury. 

Regular stress and psychological injuries can have a snowball effect for companies. The negative impact can not only lead to mental health issues for the individual, but more unplanned absences, higher staff turnover, lack of engagement or withdrawal from work and errors in work. 

While hazards differ from workplace to workplace, elements that inflict psychological harm generally fall into one of the following categories:

• Environmental: These hazards tend to be physical that affect a worker's comfort in the workplace. This could include poor air quality, extreme noise or temperatures, unsafe machinery, among others. 
• Organisational: These hazards have to do with management and how things are done within an organisation. Common organisational hazards include high job demand, lack of support from supervisors or colleagues, bullying, lack of control over one's job, lack of clarity with a role, poor communication about changes within an organisation and lack of reward and recognition.
• Individual: People are impacted by factors differently. What harms one worker might not harm another, at least not to the same extent. For example, a fast-paced job may be less stress for an older, more experienced person, but very overwhelming to a younger, less experienced person. 

Now that you have a better idea of what psychological risk encompasses, you can make sure you are managing it properly within your organisation. 

Managing psychological risk 

To manage psychological risk at your workplace, your organisation can follow the same familiar risk management process that is applied to physical hazards. 

1. Identify the hazards that could inflict psychological harm

As mentioned previously, the types of psychological hazards to look out for vary from industry to industry and company to company. Nevertheless, just as you would work to identify physical hazards, your organisation must work to identify psychological hazards. A key part of identifying risks is consulting with workers, both one-on-one and in groups, to get genuine feedback. This will help determine the true issues and verify any observations your management team has had. You should also review incident reports, staff complaints, staff absenteeism and turnover to detect any notable trends. 

2. Assess the risks of the hazards to prioritise

Once you have identified risks, the next step is to do a risk assessment. For this, the goal is to determine the level of risk that the hazard presents, so you can prioritise which control measures should be implemented first. To assess the level of risk, first consider the likeliness the hazard will inflict harm. For example, bullying by an individual or group of individuals is more likely to lead to damaging psychological injury than a minor disagreement between coworkers, so in that case the bullying should be addressed first. Secondly, you want to consider the frequency and intensity of exposure to the hazard. In other words, ask if the hazard something people are facing for days on end without relief and the exposure is severe. If so, it needs to be managed more quickly than something that isn't as frequent. For instance, if work stress is at a constant high, that stress will likely cause more harm than perhaps not providing enough recognition to workers. 

3. Control the risks

Now that the risks have been identified and prioritised, measures can be put in place to control them. As noted, an organisation has an obligation to eliminate or mitigate the psychological risk as far as is reasonably practical. When it comes to managing psychological risk, often a mix of controls will be needed and as the Hierarchy of Risk Controls suggests, relying on people's behaviour should be the last resort. As explained by SafeWork Australia, "the aim [for control measures] is to achieve the best fit between working environment, the systems of work and the needs and capabilities of workers." Here are some examples of control measures for psychological hazards.

4. Monitor and review your control measures

As with physical hazards, the control measures for preventing or eliminating psychological risk also need to be regularly reviewed - and perhaps even monitored more closely given psychological harm can be less obvious than physical harm. Control measures absolutely need to be reviewed when a psychological injury happens, prior to making organisational changes and if new information surfaces that suggests a control measure may no longer be effective. By reviewing control measures frequently, you are more likely to catch an issue sooner and intervene before there is psychological injury. 

Quite possibly the most important part of managing psychological risks is open and ongoing communication within your workforce. By consulting with your employees and encouraging the sharing of information, not only will you be more aware of psychological hazards but you'll have the input you need to entirely prevent or reduce the likelihood of injury. As we always say, your first priority is your people. 

If your organisation is looking to improve its workplace health and safety management, software likeRiskWare can provide the structure and support you need. Our team always has time for a conversation. Don't hesitate to get in touch!

1. Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963;67(4):371–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Humphreys L. Tearoom trade. Society. 1970;7(3):10–25. [Google Scholar]

2. Kelman HC. Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin. 1967;67(1):1–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics and Behavior. 2008;18(1):59–92. [Google Scholar]Broder A. Deception can be acceptable. American Psychologist. 1998;53(7):805–806. [Google Scholar]Ortmann A, Hertwig R. Is deception acceptable? American Psychologist. 1997;52(7):746–747. [Google Scholar]

3. American Psychological Association Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. 2002 http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.

4. Kimmel AJ. Ethical Issues on Behavioral Research: Basic and Applied Perspectives. 2nd ed Blackwell Publishing; Oxford, U.K.: 2007. [Google Scholar]Cook KS, Yamagishi T. A defense of deception on scientific grounds. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2008;71(3):215–221. [Google Scholar]

5. Riach PA, Rich J. Deceptive field experiments of discrimination: Are they ethical? Kyklos. 2004;57(3):457–470. [Google Scholar]Oakes JM. Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review. 2002;26(5):443–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122–1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Kim S, Ubel P, de Vries R. Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature. 2009;457(7229):534–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in social psychological experiments: Two misconceptions and a research agenda. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2008;71(3):222–227. [Google Scholar]

8. Epley N, Huff C. Suspicion, affective response, and educational benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24(7):759–768. [Google Scholar]

9. Christensen L. Deception in psychological research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1988;14(4):664–675. [Google Scholar]

10. Singer E, Levine FJ. Research synthesis: Protection of human subjects of research: Recent developments and future prospects for the social sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003;67(1):148–164. [Google Scholar]

11. Fillenbaum S. Prior deception and subsequent experimental performance: The “faithful” subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966;4(5):532–537. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Finney PD. When consent information refers to risk and deception—implications for social research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1987;2(1):37–48. [Google Scholar]

12. Baumrind D. Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist. 1985;40(2):165–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Portnoy DB. Deception (methodological technique) In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, editors. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2007. pp. 222–223. [Google Scholar]

13. Oczak M, Niedźwieńska A. Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2007;2(3):49–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. See ref. 12, Baumrind 1985.

15. Baumrind D. IRBs and social science research: The costs of deception. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research. 1979;1(6):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Ortmann A, Hertwig R. The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics. 2002;5(2):111–131. [Google Scholar]

16. Sharpe D, Adair J, Roese NJ. Twenty years of deception research: A decline in subjects’ trust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1992;18(5):585–590. [Google Scholar]Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ, Skowronski JJ, et al. Whatever happens in the laboratory stays in the laboratory: The prevalence and prevention of participant crosstalk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2009;35:635–642. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Taylor KM, Shepperd JA. Probing suspicion among participants in deception research. American Psychologist. 1996;51(8):886–887. [Google Scholar]

18. McDaniel T, Starmer C. Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology. 1998;19(3):403–409. [Google Scholar]

19. See ref. 2, Broder 1998. ; Babbie E. Laud Humphreys and research ethics. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2004;24(3-5):12–19. [Google Scholar]

20. Bortolotti L, Mameli M. Deception in psychology: Moral costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. 2006;13(3):259–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Pihl R, Zacchia C, Zeichner A. Follow-up analysis of the use of deception and aversive contingencies in psychological experiments. Psychological Reports. 1981;48(3):927–930. [Google Scholar]

22. Benham B. The ubiquity of deception and the ethics of deceptive research. Bioethics. 2008;22:147–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. See ref. 8, Epley, Huff 1998. ; Smith CP. How (un)acceptable is research involving deception? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research. 1981;3(8):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Soliday E, Stanton AL. Deceived versus nondeceived participants’ perceptions of scientific and applied psychology. Ethics and Behavior. 1995;5(1):87–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Smith SS, Richardson D. Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;44(5):1075–1082. [Google Scholar]

25. Elms AC. Keeping deception honest: Justifying conditions for social scientific research stratagems. In: Beauchamp TL, Faden RR, Wallace RJ, Walters L, editors. Ethical Issues in Social Science Research. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore, MD: 1982. pp. 232–245. [Google Scholar]

26. Holmes DS. Effectiveness of debriefing after a stress-producing deception. Journal of Research in Personality. 1973;7(2):127–138. [Google Scholar]Holmes DS, Bennett DH. Experiments to answer questions raised by the use of deception in psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974;29(3):358–367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. See ref. 22, Benham 2008.

28. See ref. 15, Baumrind 1979. p. 4.

29. Tsugawa Y, Ohbu S, Cruess R, et al. Introducing the professionalism mini-evaluation exercise (P-MEX) in Japan: Results from a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Academic Medicine. 2011;86(8):1026. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Lingard L. Basing the evaluation of professionalism on observable behaviors: A cautionary tale. Academic Medicine. 2004;79(10):S1–S4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Wilkinson TJ, Wade WB, Knock LD. A blueprint to assess professionalism: Results of a systematic review. Academic Medicine. 2009;84(5):551–558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Sears DO. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51(3):515. [Google Scholar]Henry PJ. College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry. 2008;19(2):49–71. [Google Scholar]

32. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press; Princeton, NJ: 1965. [Google Scholar]

33. Gramzow RH, Gaertner L. Self-esteem and favoritism toward novel in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88(5):801–815. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54(6):1063–1070. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Mainous AG, III, Smith DW, Geesey ME, Tilley BC. Development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2006;4(3):247–252. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. See ref. 2, Kelman 1967.

37. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research . The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington DC: 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Fisher CB, Fried AL, Feldman LG. Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics and Behavior. 2009;19(6):496–518. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. See ref. 24, Smith, Richardson 1983.

40. Cohen D, Nisbett RE, Bowdle BF, Schwarz N. Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;70(5):945–959. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Williams LE, Bargh JA. Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science. 2008;322(5901):606–607. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]