The investigators analyzed the relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood. Thirty participants incarcerated in a Midwestern United States correctional facility were chosen using random sampling. Individuals were given the opportunity to decline participation in the study. Individuals who chose to participate signed a consent form. A detailed questionnaire was given addressing personal demographic data (e.g. age, sex, race, education level), type of trauma experienced, and interpersonal relationship behaviors. Interviewers administered the questionnaire in a face-to-face interview.
After analyzing the case study above, I can see many risks and benefits to the researchers, the research subjects, and to society. As outlined in The Belmont Report, the basic ethical principles of any research project are respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (“The Belmont Report”, 1979). The brevity of the case study makes it difficult to thoroughly analyze all the ethical principles, but there are a few things that stand out. Respect for persons appears to have been considered, as there was an opportunity for declination of participation and for signed consent. Because the research subjects are prisoners, and their liberty is restricted and they are potentially vulnerable to coercion, special consideration must be made to ensure that the subjects’ participation will in no way provide them with special privileges, such as early release or parole (“Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46”, 2009).
Under the principle of beneficence, it is imperative that research subjects are protected from harm. In the case study we see that the subject matter could be considered sensitive, thus creating the potential for psychological harm. In order to mitigate the potential harm, special care would need to be taken to provide psychological care to the subjects should the reliving of childhood experiences become traumatic. In addition, these services would need to be offered regardless of incarceration status (“Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46”, 2009).
Other issues that are concerning regarding beneficence would be the potential harm/risk to those conducting the research. Studies have shown that inmates who have experienced trauma during their childhoods are already at a higher risk of being violent in prison (Martin, Eljdupovic, Mckenzie, & Colman, 2015). Face-to-face interviews with subjects who are already at an increased risk of violence is somewhat risky, but when you add questions about memories that could potentially be triggering, you have an increased risk. Care would need to be taken to protect the researchers from violent outbursts, should they occur.
Justice is a little harder to access. While these subjects are potentially the “perfect” subjects, given an inmate’s increase likelihood to have experienced trauma and dysfunction in interpersonal relationships, the researchers would need to carefully scrutinize whether their choice of subjects are “perfect” or just “convenient”. In addition, there is some concern that data could be skewed, as there are surely members of the population who have experienced childhood trauma and are not incarcerated criminals.
The benefits of this study are increased self-awareness for the subjects, as some may have never tied their childhood traumas with their relationship issues. Some may voluntarily seek assistance with these issues and make improvements that would benefit them and their communities. Additionally, research such as this could provide data that would help professionals develop tactics that could intervene in childhood to help avoid the issues that follow into adulthood. Such developments would undoubtedly benefit society as a whole.
Due to the incarceration of the subjects and the nature of the research (behavioral), a full IRB review would be indicated prior to the initiation of this study (“Office of the Institutional Review Board (IRB): Research”). The composition of the IRB would need to be specific to satisfy the requirements of 45 CFR 46, which outlines that the board would need to be comprised of a majority of non-prison related individuals, but must have at least one member who is a prisoner or prisoner representative (“Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46”, 2009).
Resources:
Office of the Institutional Review Board (IRB): Research. (n.d.). Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://jcu.edu/research/irb
NIH, PHS, HHS. Protection of human subjects: Code of Federal Regulations, 45 CFR 46, 1–14 (2009). Bethesda, MD. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/ohrp/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf
Martin, M. S., Eljdupovic, G., Mckenzie, K., & Colman, I. (2015). Risk of violence by inmates with childhood trauma and mental health needs. Law and Human Behavior, 39(6), 614–623. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000149
The Belmont Report (Rep.). (1979, April 9). Retrieved https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Melissa,
Analyzing this case study is difficult due to the small amount of information presented. I agree that, as you said, there are people who experienced trauma but did not go on to become incarcerated. This case study doesn’t mention a control group to which the incarcerated prisoners can be compared, limiting the ability of the researchers to generalize their results or make causal statements. With this design they can only say that early trauma has a certain correlation with impaired interpersonal relationships. It is correct that a full Institutional Review Board review is required when proposing a study with prisoner participants (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2003).
It had not occurred to me to question the suitability of these participants vs their convenience as a human subjects pool but that is a really good point. Given the risks associated with a study of this nature, it might be better to administer the questionnaire to former inmates of prisons. That would involve more effort and cost on the part of the investigators since it would involve identifying those people in a community or across multiple communities, attempting to confirm addresses, willingness to participate, etc., rather than having them all in one place and easily available on the researcher’s schedule. Of course, surveying people’s interpersonal relationship characteristics after incarceration raises many more questions about what, exactly, influenced those characteristics, making it harder to tease apart early trauma effects from incarceration trauma effects.
Resource
U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 45 CFR 46.305, 306 (2003) Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/prisoner-research-ohrp-guidance-2003/index.html
Hi Dana! I hadn’t given much thought to the lack of a control group. A control group is definitely an important part of research!
The use of prisoners definitely makes this study riskier. There are so many more rules and regulations for prisoners in research than I ever realized. It makes perfect sense that there be heavy regulations, since being a prisoner doesn’t make you exempt from personal rights. I will never forget reading my first book on Auschwitz when I was young. It was specifically about the experiments that Dr. Josef Mengele conducted on twins that were held captive in the concentration camps. It was horrific what those children were subjected to in the name of science. I am thankful that steps have been taken to protect prisoners from being exploited.
This study lacked a credible supposition because investigators only selected individuals who were incarcerated to be the only subjects to analyze relationships between traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood. In addition, there is no substantial benefit that the prisoners will get from this study, although they’ll be the sole subjects.
The fact that the individuals were given the opportunity to decline participation in the study is ethically problematic and could result in unjustifiable pressures. It implies that the prisoners were given an option to opt-out instead of having an option to opt-in. Unjustifiable pressures usually occur when persons in positions of authority or commanding influence — especially where possible sanctions are involved — urge a course of action for a subject. A continuum of such influencing factors exists, however, and it is impossible to state precisely where justifiable persuasion ends and undue influence begins. (Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979).
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved January 31, 2020 from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
Hi Duke! I can see where you’re coming from on the subjects being given the option to decline rather than participate. I definitely did not read that in the same way that you did.
I’m not a research expert, but I would assume that this declination of participation would be standard with random sampling. I have seen that happen with surveys, were you’re selected, but then can chose to opt in or out. I can see where this would be a delicate line to walk with prisoners. As mentioned in my post, it’s incredibly important to be cognizant of the vulnerability of prisoners to coercion, and therefore, there must be great care taken to inform them that there are no special benefits to participation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to also make sure they know that there is nothing punitive to come out of declination either.
Great point!
Melissa,
There are so many things to consider in dealing with people in prisons, including the safety of everyone in the facility. I worked in a US Marshal facility and the psychological state of individual prisoners could effect an entire pod (cell block or group) of prisoners. I wasn’t there long. I observed odd and preferential behavior by some nurses in the medical unit and was advised that the nurses’ behavior could seriously upset prisoner dynamics and I could potentially be hurt. My brother-in-law is the accreditation officer at a max security prison, making sure the prison is in compliance with all regulations, including those involving prisoners’ rights, and my sister was in charge of religious programs at the same facility. Her position was entirely focused on ensuring prisoners’ rights to freedom of religion within the prison system while following regulations and best practices for safety. Occasionally the way a religion is practiced must be modified to maintain a safe facility. For instance, a Sikh wouldn’t be allowed a full size metal blade, neither would a Wiccan. Some accommodation must be attempted while still preserving safety for everyone. You are right. Prisoners absolutely don’t lose human rights once incarcerated. Sometimes the approach to protecting and providing for those rights has to be modified for everyone’s safety, but their rights must be observed.
Of course, this sort of prison isn’t comparable to Auschwitz in any way. Concentration camps seem to have been designed with the intention of violating every human right in the most heinous ways possible, but we did learn a lot from that evil. The Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment were sparked by the behavior of people during WWII and increased our knowledge of human psychology. Interestingly, ethics in research have evolved as a result of those experiments, as well, which is important because apparently humans, on the whole, haven’t changed much at all(Burger, 2009).
Resource:
Burger, J., (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. doi:10.1037/a0010932
please note:
The title of the journal (American Psychologist) and volume number (64) should be italicized but I can’t find a way to do that in this format so I formatted in a word document but the formatting did not carry over.