Maria Mira R.

dela Cruz

BS Psychology 2 – 1

Classification of research in research methodology

How we can classify the research?

We can classify the research according to;

1. The Purpose of Research

Purpose of the research

We can classify the research into three basic categories according to the purpose of the research;

Exploratory research

A small amount of information is available about the topic but if you want to explore it in details for
better understanding of the problem and its solution.

Descriptive research

Descriptive research presents a detailed picture of the problem or situation. Descriptive research is in
more detailed as compared to the exploratory research.

Explanatory research

Explanatory research is an attempt to connect different ideas and to understand the different reasons,
causes, and their effects.

Use of the research?

We can classify the research into two basic categories according to the purpose of the research;

Basic research

Basic research is the research to find the basic knowledge or to refine the basic knowledge. Basic
research is also called pure research and fundamental research.

Applied research

Applied research is research that is useful for a human being. Applied research is conducted for solving
practical life problems.

Time handling based classification

We can classify the research into two basic categories according to the time handling of the research;

Longitudinal research

In longitudinal research, researchers examine the features of a unit at more than one time.
Cross-sectional research

In cross-sectional research, researchers observe a specific point at the same time.

Techniques Based Classification

We can classify the research into two basic categories according to the techniques of the research;

Qualitative research

Qualitative research does not handle the measurable variable. This research is mainly done to find
relationships and to define the things in a qualitative way.

Quantitative research

In quantitative research data is represented in the quantitative from in the form of numbers. Statistical
analysis is conducted in quantitative research.

What is quantitative research?

In quantitative research data is represented in the quantitative from in the form of numbers. Statistical
analysis are conducted in quantitative research.

What are techniques of qualitative research?

1. Surveys
2. Experiments
3. Using Existing Statistics

What are examples of quantitative research? A survey conducted for the performance of tutorials
of T4Tutorials;

T4Tutorials.com is a website that provides easy and simple tutorials for the boring subjects?

1. strongly agree

2. agree

3. disagree

4.strongly disagree

Reference: Continue reading at https://t4tutorials.com/classification-of-research-research-

Case Study
A case study is conducted by observing one participant (human being)/subject (animal), or a group of
participants or subjects in maximum detail. For instance, if research wanted to be conducted on the
understanding of language in animals, any one animal who had already been exposed to such an
environment where it was spoken to in a particular language would be observed, and then its
comprehension of this language would be much understood. Moreover, by thoroughly studying one
case, a lot of conclusions may be drawn by this method, based on which further research may be
carried out. The only con of this method of psychological research is that generalizing these results
may be difficult because of the in-depth study of only one subject. What is applicable to one subject
may not be applicable to another subject, and results may vary. As such, concrete conclusions cannot
be drawn by this psychological research method. A case study is a method of qualitative research.
Survey/Questionnaire
Questionnaires are given to a group of people who are required to answer questions that have been
designed to understand their thought process, attitudes, values, or any other factor that is to be
studied. For instance, considering that this is a common research method used particularly in the field
of social psychology, this method will allow researchers to analyze the thinking patterns of a specific
group of people in relation to the society they belong to. Questionnaires provide somewhat conclusive
results when they are directed toward a specific group of people (say all women, all men, all upper
class, or classified based on any one such factor). This group then becomes a sample, which is a
representative of people belonging to these groups. However, it should also be noted that in order to
understand diverse views regarding a particular (social) concept, it is important to pick out a random
group of people, who are then participants of a random sample. The benefit of using a questionnaire
is that it enables the researcher to generalize results at a better level than does a case study. It also
provides a window to the diverse viewpoints that may exist among a general group. However, this very
factor is a great disadvantage as unless a majority in a particular pattern is not seen, every other
response may be dismissed as an exception. Moreover, the way people tend to comprehend a particular
question is different, which is when responses to these questions may also change.
Correlation
Correlation is a measure of the relation between an independent variable and a dependent variable.
For instance, if psychologists were to study the relation between stress and lack of sleep, we can point
out that stress is the independent variable, while lack of sleep is the variable dependent on stress. So
you can develop a thesis that says the greater the stress level, the more difficult it is for people to get
quality sleep. This would be a case of positive correlation, because as the intensity of one variable
increases, so does that of the other. On the other hand, in a case of negative correlation, the value of
one variable decreases as that of the other increases. As such, if your study were to be on the number
of hours spent playing video games on student grades, you would assume that as kids spend more
time playing video games, their grades worsen. This is an example of negative correlation. Carrying
out research based on correlation helps us conclude our assumptions. For instance, we know that stress
can cause mental disturbance and affect sleep, which is when we decide to carry out research and
understand the intensity of this effect. On the negative side, research conducted through correlation
does not allow us to specifically establish the cause behind the situation. For instance, when we assume
that playing video games affects children's grades, we do not take into account the other factors that
may be contributing to poor grades, such as family environment, lack of interest in studies, or the
inability to retain large chunks of information, leading to poor grades. Therefore, the cause and relation
effect cannot be established with this method.
Experiment
Filling the gap that correlation leaves behind, by conducting experiments we can understand the cause
and effect relation between any two variables. As such, to understand whether it is really the number
of hours spent playing video games that is causing poor grades, controlled experiments may be carried
out where children are made to play video games for a certain number of hours every day, and their
grades are be monitored over a period of days. By taking into consideration this hypothesis, and
establishing results to prove whether or not it is true is what is achieved by experimentation.
Experiments are usually carried out among varied groups of subjects or participants. These groups are
called treatment groups (where participants are being manipulated to study the effects of this
manipulation) and controlled groups (where participants are not manipulated in order to draw a
comparison between the controlled and treatment groups). This is perhaps the best method of research
as it helps us establish results after carrying out experimentation, unlike the aforementioned methods.
The disadvantage of this method lies in the fact that every variable or factor cannot be controlled and
manipulated thereby affecting the final result. Moreover, an experiment can help establish only one
cause and effect relationship at a time, because every variable is controlled.
Psychological research is also termed based on the time it takes to carry out research. For instance,
these are popular research methods in developmental psychology, specifically known as cross-sectional
research and longitudinal research. The former refers to research that is carried out at one point in
time where data, variables, and all other necessary elements are available at the same point, whereas
longitudinal research is carried out over a period of time where data is gathered over this time and
variables are studied thereafter or at the same time.
We can say that one research method may be more accurate than the other, but it cannot be
established that any one method is completely accurate. However, results obtained in a majority can
help provide conclusive insight into the research. Psychological research and the methods used are
vast. This overview should have given you a fair idea of how the process is carried out to obtain results.
ETHICS IN RESEARCH

American Psychological Association

(Smith, 2003)
1. Discuss intellectual property frankly
Academe's competitive "publish-or-perish" mindset can be a recipe for trouble when it comes to who
gets credit for authorship. The best way to avoid disagreements about who should get credit and in
what order is to talk about these issues at the beginning of a working relationship, even though many
people often feel uncomfortable about such topics.
"It's almost like talking about money," explains Tangney. "People don't want to appear to be greedy or
presumptuous."
APA's Ethics Code offers some guidance: It specifies that "faculty advisors discuss publication credit
with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate."
When researchers and students put such understandings in writing, they have a helpful tool to
continually discuss and evaluate contributions as the research progresses.
However, even the best plans can result in disputes, which often occur because people look at the
same situation differently. "While authorship should reflect the contribution," says APA Ethics Office
Director Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, "we know from social science research that people often overvalue
their contributions to a project. We frequently see that in authorship-type situations. In many instances,
both parties genuinely believe they're right." APA's Ethics Code stipulates that psychologists take credit
only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed and that
publication credit should accurately reflect the relative contributions: "Mere possession of an
institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit," says the code.
"Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately,
such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement."
The same rules apply to students. If they contribute substantively to the conceptualization, design,
execution, analysis or interpretation of the research reported, they should be listed as authors.
Contributions that are primarily technical don't warrant authorship. In the same vein, advisers should
not expect ex-officio authorship on their students' work.
Matthew McGue, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, says his psychology department has instituted a
procedure to avoid murky authorship issues. "We actually have a formal process here where students
make proposals for anything they do on the project," he explains. The process allows students and
faculty to more easily talk about research responsibility, distribution and authorship.
Psychologists should also be cognizant of situations where they have access to confidential ideas or
research, such as reviewing journal manuscripts or research grants, or hearing new ideas during a
presentation or informal conversation. While it's unlikely reviewers can purge all of the information in
an interesting manuscript from their thinking, it's still unethical to take those ideas without giving credit
to the originator.
"If you are a grant reviewer or a journal manuscript reviewer [who] sees someone's research [that]
hasn't been published yet, you owe that person a duty of confidentiality and anonymity," says Gerald
P. Koocher, PhD, editor of the journal Ethics and Behavior and co-author of "Ethics in Psychology:
Professional Standards and Cases" (Oxford University Press, 1998).
Researchers also need to meet their ethical obligations once their research is published: If authors
learn of errors that change the interpretation of research findings, they are ethically obligated to
promptly correct the errors in a correction, retraction, erratum or by other means.
To be able to answer questions about study authenticity and allow others to reanalyze the results,
authors should archive primary data and accompanying records for at least five years, advises
University of Minnesota psychologist and researcher Matthew McGue, PhD. "Store all your data. Don't
destroy it," he says. "Because if someone charges that you did something wrong, you can go back."
"It seems simple, but this can be a tricky area," says Susan Knapp, APA's deputy publisher. "The APA
Publication Manual Section 8.05 has some general advice on what to retain and suggestions about
things to consider in sharing data."
The APA Ethics Code requires psychologists to release their data to others who want to verify their
conclusions, provided that participants' confidentiality can be protected and as long as legal rights
concerning proprietary data don't preclude their release. However, the code also notes that
psychologists who request data in these circumstances can only use the shared data for reanalysis; for
any other use, they must obtain a prior written agreement.
2. Be conscious of multiple roles
APA's Ethics Code says psychologists should avoid relationships that could reasonably impair their
professional performance or could exploit or harm others. But it also notes that many kinds of multiple
relationships aren't unethical--as long as they're not reasonably expected to have adverse effects.
That notwithstanding, psychologists should think carefully before entering into multiple relationships
with any person or group, such as recruiting students or clients as participants in research studies or
investigating the effectiveness of a product of a company whose stock they own.
For example, when recruiting students from your Psychology 101 course to participate in an
experiment, be sure to make clear that participation is voluntary. If participation is a course
 requirement, be sure to note that in the class syllabus, and ensure that participation has educative
value by, for instance, providing a thorough debriefing to enhance students' understanding of the
study. The 2002 Ethics Code also mandates in Standard 8.04b that students be given equitable
alternatives to participating in research.
Perhaps one of the most common multiple roles for researchers is being both a mentor and lab
supervisor to students they also teach in class. Psychologists need to be especially cautious that they
don't abuse the power differential between themselves and students, say experts. They shouldn't, for
example, use their clout as professors to coerce students into taking on additional research duties.
By outlining the nature and structure of the supervisory relationship before supervision or mentoring
begins, both parties can avoid misunderstandings, says George Mason University's Tangney. It's helpful
to create a written agreement that includes both parties' responsibilities as well as authorship
considerations, intensity of the supervision and other key aspects of the job.
"While that's the ideal situation, in practice we do a lot less of that than we ought to," she notes. "Part
of it is not having foresight up front of how a project or research study is going to unfold."
That's why experts also recommend that supervisors set up timely and specific methods to give
students feedback and keep a record of the supervision, including meeting times, issues discussed and
duties assigned.
If psychologists do find that they are in potentially harmful multiple relationships, they are ethically
mandated to take steps to resolve them in the best interest of the person or group while complying
with the Ethics Code.
3. Follow informed-consent rules
When done properly, the consent process ensures that individuals are voluntarily participating in the
research with full knowledge of relevant risks and benefits.
"The federal standard is that the person must have all of the information that might reasonably
influence their willingness to participate in a form that they can understand and comprehend," says
Koocher, dean of Simmons College's School for Health Studies.
APA's Ethics Code mandates that psychologists who conduct research should inform participants about:
 The purpose of the research, expected duration and procedures.
 Participants' rights to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once it has started, as
well as the anticipated consequences of doing so.
 Reasonably foreseeable factors that may influence their willingness to participate, such as potential
risks, discomfort or adverse effects.
 Any prospective research benefits.
 Limits of confidentiality, such as data coding, disposal, sharing and archiving, and when confidentiality
must be broken.
 Incentives for participation.
 Who participants can contact with questions.
Experts also suggest covering the likelihood, magnitude and duration of harm or benefit of participation,
emphasizing that their involvement is voluntary and discussing treatment alternatives, if relevant to
the research.
Keep in mind that the Ethics Code includes specific mandates for researchers who conduct experimental
treatment research. Specifically, they must inform individuals about the experimental nature of the
treatment, services that will or will not be available to the control groups, how participants will be
assigned to treatments and control groups, available treatment alternatives and compensation or
monetary costs of participation.
If research participants or clients are not competent to evaluate the risks and benefits of participation
themselves--for example, minors or people with cognitive disabilities--then the person who's giving
permission must have access to that same information, says Koocher.
Remember that a signed consent form doesn't mean the informing process can be glossed over, say
ethics experts. In fact, the APA Ethics Code says psychologists can skip informed consent in two
instances only: When permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations, or when the research
would not reasonably be expected to distress or harm participants and involves one of the following:
 The study of normal educational practices, curricula or classroom management methods conducted in
educational settings.
 Anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations or archival research for which disclosure of
responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial
standing, employability or reputation, and for which confidentiality is protected.
 The study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings
for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected.
If psychologists are precluded from obtaining full consent at the beginning--for example, if the protocol
includes deception, recording spontaneous behavior or the use of a confederate--they should be sure
to offer a full debriefing after data collection and provide people with an opportunity to reiterate their
consent, advise experts.
The code also says psychologists should make reasonable efforts to avoid offering "excessive or
inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are
likely to coerce participation."
 4. Respect confidentiality and privacy
Upholding individuals' rights to confidentiality and privacy is a central tenet of every psychologist's
work. However, many privacy issues are idiosyncratic to the research population, writes Susan Folkman,
PhD, in "Ethics in Research with Human Participants" (APA, 2000). For instance, researchers need to
devise ways to ask whether participants are willing to talk about sensitive topics without putting them
in awkward situations, say experts. That could mean they provide a set of increasingly detailed
interview questions so that participants can stop if they feel uncomfortable.
And because research participants have the freedom to choose how much information about
themselves they will reveal and under what circumstances, psychologists should be careful when
recruiting participants for a study, says Sangeeta Panicker, PhD, director of the APA Science
Directorate's Research Ethics Office. For example, it's inappropriate to obtain contact information of
members of a support group to solicit their participation in research. However, you could give your
colleague who facilitates the group a letter to distribute that explains your research study and provides
a way for individuals to contact you, if they're interested.
Other steps researchers should take include:
 Discuss the limits of confidentiality. Give participants information about how their data will be
used, what will be done with case materials, photos and audio and video recordings, and secure their
consent.
 Know federal and state law. Know the ins and outs of state and federal law that might apply to
your research. For instance, the Goals 2000: Education Act of 1994 prohibits asking children about
religion, sex or family life without parental permission.
Another example is that, while most states only require licensed psychologists to comply with
mandatory reporting laws, some laws also require researchers to report abuse and neglect. That's why
it's important for researchers to plan for situations in which they may learn of such reportable offenses.
Generally, research psychologists can consult with a clinician or their institution's legal department to
decide the best course of action.
 Take practical security measures. Be sure confidential records are stored in a secure area with
limited access, and consider stripping them of identifying information, if feasible. Also, be aware of
situations where confidentiality could inadvertently be breached, such as having confidential
conversations in a room that's not soundproof or putting participants' names on bills paid by accounting
departments.
 Think about data sharing before research begins. If researchers plan to share their data with
others, they should note that in the consent process, specifying how they will be shared and whether
 data will be anonymous. For example, researchers could have difficulty sharing sensitive data they've
collected in a study of adults with serious mental illnesses because they failed to ask participants for
permission to share the data. Or developmental data collected on videotape may be a valuable resource
for sharing, but unless a researcher asked permission back then to share videotapes, it would be
unethical to do so. When sharing, psychologists should use established techniques when possible to
protect confiden-tiality, such as coding data to hide identities. "But be aware that it may be almost
impossible to entirely cloak identity, especially if your data include video or audio recordings or can be
linked to larger databases," says Merry Bullock, PhD, associate executive director in APA's Science
Directorate.
 Understand the limits of the Internet. Since Web technology is constantly evolving, psychologists
need to be technologically savvy to conduct research online and cautious when exchanging confidential
information electronically. If you're not a Internet whiz, get the help of someone who is. Otherwise, it
may be possible for others to tap into data that you thought was properly protected.
5. Tap into ethics resources
One of the best ways researchers can avoid and resolve ethical dilemmas is to know both what their
ethical obligations are and what resources are available to them.
"Researchers can help themselves make ethical issues salient by reminding themselves of the basic
underpinnings of research and professional ethics," says Bullock. Those basics include:
 The Belmont Report. Released by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1979, the report provided the ethical framework for ensuing
human participant research regulations and still serves as the basis for human participant protection
legislation (see Further Reading).
 APA's Ethics Code, which offers general principles and specific guidance for research activities.
Moreover, despite the sometimes tense relationship researchers can have with their institutional review
boards (IRBs), these groups can often help researchers think about how to address potential dilemmas
before projects begin, says Panicker. But psychologists must first give their IRBs the information they
need to properly understand a research proposal.
"Be sure to provide the IRB with detailed and comprehensive information about the study, such as the
consent process, how participants will be recruited and how confidential information will be protected,"
says Bullock. "The more information you give your IRB, the better educated its members will become
about behavioral research, and the easier it will be for them to facilitate your research."
As cliché as it may be, says Panicker, thinking positively about your interactions with an IRB can help
smooth the process for both researchers and the IRBs reviewing their work.
ETHICS IN RESEARCH

Psychological Association of Philippines

A. Rights and Dignity of Participants

1. In all aspects, we respect the rights, safeguard the dignity, and protect and promote the welfare of
research participants.

2. Before beginning any research work in a community not our own or not familiar to us, we obtain
essential information about their mores, culture, social structure, customs, and traditions.

3. We respect and abide by their cultural expectations, provided that this does not contravene any of
the ethical principles of this Code of Ethics.

4. We respect the rights of research participants should they wish to discontinue their participation at
any time. We are responsive all throughout the research to participants’ non-verbal indications of a
desire to withdraw from participation, especially if the person has difficulty with verbal communication,
is a young child, or is culturally unlikely to communicate.

5. We do not contribute nor engage in research which contravenes international humanitarian law,
such as development of methods intended to torture persons, development of prohibited weapons, or
destruction of the environment.

6. It is our duty to ask participants about any factors that could bring forth potential harm, such as
pre-existing medical conditions, and to detect, remove, or correct any foreseeable undesirable
consequences prior to research proper.

7. To ensure that participants’ rights are protected, we seek independent and sufficient ethical review
of the possible risks our research may pose to them.

B. Informed Consent to Research

1. We do not just ask participants to sign in the consent form; we recognize that informed consent
happens due to the willingness of the participants to work collaboratively with us.

2. We make sure that the consent form is translated in language or dialect that the participants
understand. We will take reasonable measures to guarantee that the information was understood.

3. When we conduct research with persons below 18 years of age, we obtain informed assent from
them and informed consent from their parents or legal guardian.

4. When we conduct research with adult participants who have difficulties in comprehension or
communication, we obtain informed consent from adult family members of the participants and
approval from independent advisors.

5. When we conduct research with detained persons, we pay attention to special circumstances which
could affect the latter’s ability to give informed consent.
6. When obtaining informed consent as required in section III.J. of this Code of Ethics, it is our duty to
inform research participants about:

a. the purpose of research, expected duration, and procedures;

b. mutual responsibilities;

c. their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun;

d. the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing;

e. reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate
such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects;

f. how to rescind consent if desired;

g. any prospective research benefits;

h. protections and limits of confidentiality and/or anonymity;

i. incentives for participation; and,

j. whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants’ rights.

We shall provide an opportunity for prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers.

7. When conducting intervention research using experimental treatments, it is our duty to clarify to
participants at the beginning of research the following:

a. experimental nature of the treatment

b. services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate;

c. means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made;

d. available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes
to withdraw once a study has begun; and,

e. compensation for or monetary costs of participating, and if appropriate, including whether

8. In longitudinal research, we may need to obtain informed consent on more than one occasion.

C. Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research

1. It is our duty to obtain informed consent from research participants before recording their voices or
images for data collection, except when:

a. the research consists only of naturalistic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated that
the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm; and,

b. the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is obtained during
debriefing.

D. Research Participation of Client, Students and Subordinates

2. When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, we inform
our clients, students or subordinates about equitable alternative activities that could fulfill their
educational or employment goals.

E. Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research

1. We may dispense informed consent only on the following conditions:

a. when we believe that the research would not distress or create harm to participants or general
welfare or when our study involves:

i. the study or normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods

ii. only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which
disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their
financial standing, employability, or reputation, and confidentiality is protected;

iii. the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational
settings which would not affect the participants’ employability, and confidentiality is protected; or,

b. when it is mandated by law or is an institutional regulation.

F. Offering Inducements for Research Participation

1. We may fairly compensate participants for the use of their time, energy, and knowledge, unless such
compensation is refused in advance.

2. We make reasonable efforts not to offer undue, excessive or, inappropriate reward, financial or other
inducements for research participation, which could likely pressure or coerce participation.

3. When we offer psychological and professional services as an incentive for research participation, it
is our duty to clarify the nature of the services, including the risks, obligations and limitations.

G. Deception in Research

1. We refrain from conducting research involving deception, except:

a. when we have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant
prospective scientific, educational, medical, or applied value; and,

b. when effective non-deceptive alternative procedures are not possible.

2. We do not deceive prospective research participants about our study that is reasonably expected to
interfere their decision to give informed consent. We ensure that level of risk, discomfort, or
inconvenience that could cause physical pain or severe emotional distress is not withheld from the
participants.
3. It is our duty to explain any deception as an integral feature of design and conduct of an experiment
to those who participated in research as soon as possible, preferably at the end of their participation
but not later than the end of data gathering.

H. Debriefing

1. We debrief by informing the participants that they have contributed to the body of knowledge and
we make sure that they have also learned from their participation.

2. We give participants an opportunity to obtain the nature, results, and conclusions of the research.
We also take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions participants have about our research,
especially when the participants were led to believe that the research has a different purpose.

3. When participants’ trust may have been lost due to incomplete disclosure or temporarily leading
participants to believe that the research had a different purpose, we seek to reestablish trust and
assure them that the research procedures were carefully structured and necessary for scientifically
valid findings.

4. If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, we take reasonable
measures to reduce the risk of harm.

5. When we become aware that our research procedures have harmed a participant, we act to correct
and minimize the harm.

6. If after debriefing, the participants decided to withdraw their data, we shall respect and grant their
request. The participants have the right to appeal that their own data, including recordings, be
destroyed.

I. Observational Research

We respect the privacy and psychological well-being of persons studied based on observational
research. This method is acceptable only when those being observed would expect to be observed by
strangers.

J. Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research

1. We do not use animals in research, except when there is a sufficient reason to say that it is the only
way to:

a. further increase understanding of the structures and processes underlying human or animal
behavior;

b. increase understanding of the specific specie used in the study; or

c. eventually augment benefits to the health and welfare of humans or other animals.

2. We comply with current laws, regulations and professional standards when we acquire, care for,
use, and dispose animals used in research.

3. We take reasonable steps to ensure that animals used in research are treated humanely and are not
exposed to unnecessary discomfort, pain, or disruption. If possible, a psychologist trained in research
methods and experience in care of laboratory animals shall supervise all procedures in researches of
this kind.

4. We make sure that all individuals under our supervision have received clear instructions and
guidelines in research methods and in care, maintenance, and handling of animals or specific species
being used, to the extent that is appropriate to their role.

5. We use a procedure causing pain, stress, and privation to animals only when:

a. an alternative procedure is unavailable;

b. the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value; and,

c. we make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.

6. We perform surgical procedures with appropriate anesthesia and we follow techniques to avoid
infection and minimize the pain during and after surgery.

7. Only when it is appropriate that an animal’s life be terminated, then we proceed rapidly, with an
effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.

K. Reporting Research Results

1. Whenever feasible and appropriate, we consult with groups, organizations, or communities being
studied the findings of our research so as to increase the accuracy of interpretation and to minimize
the risk of misunderstanding, misinterpretation or misuse.

2. We are cautious when reporting results of our research regarding vulnerable groups or communities
and we ensure that the results will not be misinterpreted or misused in the development of social policy,
attitude, and practices.

3. In research involving children, we are cautious when discussing the results with parents, legal
guardians, or teachers and we make sure that there is no misinterpretation or misunderstanding.

4. We do not fabricate data.

5. If we discover significant errors in our published data, we act quickly to correct such errors in a
correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

L. Plagiarism

We do not present any portions of other’s work or data as our own, even if the source is cited
occasionally.

M. Publication Credit

1. We take responsibility and credit only for work we have actually done and credit others (including
students and research assistants) for work they have actually performed or to which they have
substantially contributed.

2. We ensure that principal authorship and co-authorship accurately reflect the relative scientific or
professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere
possession of an institutional position, such as department chair or head of the research unit, does not
justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications must be
acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or an introductory statement.

3. We do not claim credit or authorship in a publication that is substantially based on our student’s
thesis or dissertation if we do not have substantial contributions to the research beyond our regular
duties as thesis/dissertation mentor or advisor. As faculty advisors, we should discuss with students,
publication credit at the outset and throughout the research and publication process based on our
relative contributions to the research work.

4. In a multiple-authored article that is partly and/or substantially based on the student’s thesis or
dissertation, we shall give appropriate publication credit to the student based on the student’s
contribution relative to the other authors. When the article is mainly based on the student’s thesis or
dissertation, we credit the student with primary authorship.

N. Duplicate Publication of Data

We do not publish data that have been previously published and claim them as original data. However,
this does not prohibit republishing of data as long as proper acknowledgement is clearly stated.

O. Sharing Research Data for Verification

It is our duty to share and not to withhold our data to other competent professionals, who seek to
verify and reanalyze the research results and substantive claims of our publication, provided that:

1. The latter obtain prior written agreement for the use of data;

2. The latter intend to use the data solely for the purpose declared;

3. The latter will hold responsibility for costs associated with the release of data; and,

4. Confidentiality of participants can be protected. Unless legal rights concerning proprietary data
preclude such release, then the latter should seek permission from the concerned institution,
organization or agency.

P. Reviewers

When we review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research proposal review,
we respect the confidentiality and the proprietary rights of those who submitted it.

Q. Limitations of the Study

1. We acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge, methods, findings, interventions, interpretations,

2. In cases wherein our research touches on social policies and structures of communities which we do
not belong, we thoroughly discuss the limits of our data with respect to their social policy.

3. We do not conceal disconfirming evidence about our findings and views and we acknowledge
alternative hypotheses and explanations.