PSYCH 660 Week 1 The APA Ethics Code Example

Drop the Three Outliers and Add My Name: Applying the APA Ethics Code in a University Sleep Lab

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSYCH/660: Ethics and Professional Issues

Week 1 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The lab, its staff and the dilemma are composites written for a model paper; ethical standards and research findings come from the sources listed.

The APA Ethics Code guides psychologists in research, practice and teaching. Its value shows most when a reasonable-sounding request conflicts with it. This paper applies the code to two requests I received in the university lab where I coordinate research.

The Setting and the Requests

I coordinate a sleep research lab at a public university in Tucson, Arizona, while completing an MS in Psychology. The lab studies how screen use before bed affects adolescents' sleep. Last month, two requests arrived within days of each other. First, our principal investigator, reviewing results before a grant renewal deadline, noted that the main effect of a bedtime screen-limit intervention was just short of statistical significance. Three participants had unusually short sleep in the intervention group. He asked me to remove them "as outliers" and rerun the analysis, which would make the effect significant. Our preregistration did not specify an outlier rule. Second, a postdoctoral researcher asked to be added as an author on a conference poster I had written with two undergraduates, saying it would help his job applications. He had not contributed to the design, data collection, analysis or writing.

The Structure of the Code

The current code (American Psychological Association, 2017) opens with a statement of scope, then sets out five ideals: do good and avoid harm, be trustworthy and responsible, be honest, be fair and respect people's rights and dignity. These principles are aspirational and are not themselves the basis for sanctions. Ten sections of ethical standards follow, covering topics from resolving ethical issues and competence to research and publication, assessment and therapy. The standards are enforceable.

Which Standards Apply

For the first request, Standard 8.10, reporting research results, prohibits fabricating data and requires psychologists who discover significant errors to take reasonable steps to correct them. Removing data points because they weaken a result, without a prespecified rule or disclosure, misrepresents what the study found, which conflicts with the principle of integrity and with the spirit of Standard 8.10. For the second, Standard 8.12, publication credit, states that psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or substantially contributed to, and that minor contributions are acknowledged in footnotes or introductory statements.

How Common Are These Pressures?

Fanelli (2009) pooled anonymous surveys in which scientists were asked whether they, or colleagues they knew, had bent the rules with data. About two percent admitted to having fabricated, falsified or modified data at least once, and up to about a third admitted to other questionable research practices; rates were higher when scientists were asked about colleagues' behavior. Fanelli concluded that misconduct was likely underestimated by direct reports.

John et al. (2012) surveyed over two thousand psychologists about questionable research practices using an incentive for truthful reporting. Large shares admitted to practices such as failing to report all dependent measures, deciding whether to collect more data after looking at results and selectively reporting studies that worked. Many respondents considered these practices defensible at the time.

These findings place my principal investigator's request in context: it reflects a common pressure in research careers, not unusual malice.

The effect was a few hours of sleep from significance; the integrity of the study was the price of closing that gap.

Resolving the Data Request

Standard 1.03 and the principle of fidelity encourage resolving concerns directly when possible. I met with the principal investigator and proposed a transparent approach: report the preregistered analysis with all participants, present a clearly labeled sensitivity analysis excluding the three cases with the reason, a rule stated as exploratory, and note that the effect was in the predicted direction. I pointed out that grant reviewers increasingly value transparent reporting and that a nonsignificant but well-powered pilot can still support renewal. He agreed, somewhat reluctantly. I documented the conversation.

Resolving the Authorship Request

Fine and Kurdek (1993) offered guidance for determining authorship credit and order in faculty-student collaborations. They argued that authorship should reflect a professional contribution to the conceptualization, design, analysis or writing of the work, that order should reflect relative contribution and that collaborators should discuss authorship early and revisit it as roles change. They warned against granting authorship for supervision, funding or general assistance alone.

The postdoc had contributed none of these. I explained Standard 8.12 and offered to acknowledge his help with equipment setup on the poster. He accepted. The two undergraduates, who had contributed substantially, remained authors in order of contribution.

Who Is Harmed by Small Distortions

It is tempting to see dropping three data points as harmless, since no participant is hurt and the overall direction of the effect stays the same. The harm is quieter. Other researchers and clinicians rely on published results to decide what to study and what to recommend to families; a falsely significant effect can send them toward an intervention that works less well than reported. Parents reading news coverage might change bedtime rules based on an overstated finding. And the lab's future work depends on trust: if a later replication fails, the lab's other findings become suspect. The principle of integrity exists partly because these harms are spread out and delayed, which makes them easy to ignore in the moment.

Power and Speaking Up

I was the most junior person in both conversations. Research coordinators depend on principal investigators for references and future employment, and postdocs often hold informal authority in labs. That imbalance is one reason questionable practices persist: the people who notice them may not feel safe objecting. Preparing written proposals, citing the code and consulting an advisor beforehand made it possible to raise concerns as solutions rather than accusations.

Why Consultation Matters

Before each conversation, I consulted my faculty advisor, who confirmed my reading of the standards and suggested framing my proposals around shared goals. The code encourages consultation when issues are unclear, and it also protected me: a junior staff member challenging a principal investigator benefits from a documented, reasoned position.

Ethics, Law and Institutional Policy

Neither request involved illegal conduct, but both touched university research integrity policies, which define falsification broadly. The code often asks more than law requires, and institutional policies may set additional rules.

The Broader Lab Culture

The two requests also revealed that the lab had no written norms for data handling or credit. Graduate students, coordinators and postdocs learned expectations informally, which left room for pressure to fill the gap. After these conversations, the principal investigator asked me to draft lab guidelines covering preregistration, data exclusions and authorship, to be discussed at a lab meeting each fall.

What I Would Do Differently

Both problems could have been prevented: a preregistered outlier rule would have answered the first question in advance, and a lab authorship policy discussed at the start of each project would have answered the second.

Conclusion

The APA Ethics Code's principles and enforceable standards guided responses to two common research pressures. Keeping all data with transparent sensitivity analysis and limiting authorship to real contributors protected the lab's integrity while preserving working relationships.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), Article e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141-1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953