Information obtained about a research participant during the course of an investigation is confidential unless otherwise agreed upon in advance. When the possibility exists that others may obtain access to such information, this possibility, together with plans for protecting confidentiality, is explained to the participant as part of the procedure for obtaining informed consent. (APA, 1982, p. 7)
There are a number of situations in which a research participant's anonymity/confidentiality can be threatened. First, rather than destroy identifying information about participants, the investigator may retain it for an extended period, perhaps for purposes of long-term follow-up. The longer this information is kept on record, the greater the potential (unintentional or not) for breaches of confidentiality. Second, should informed consent be provided by parents or guardians, then they may feel entitled to any information acquired about the participant during the inquiry. Third, organizations who sponsor research, with the behavior of their employees as the subject of inquiry, may feel a similar entitlement. Fourth, the investigator may be legally required to disclose knowledge obtained about participants on the basis of a court order. Fifth, publication of research using a small sample size may allow readers to reasonably guess the identity of individual participants. Finally, the investigator may feel compelled to turn over to the appropriate authorities what he or she learned about certain participants if he or she feels that they may inflict harm upon themselves or others. The commonality among all these cases concerns informed consent (see Principle D): the investigator should make clear from the beginning to all those willing to participate (and other concerned parties) potential threats to their anonymity/confidentiality and how the investigator plans to act should any of these situations apply.
Certain practical measures on the part of the investigator can help protect research participants' anonymity/confidentiality. For example, should there be a need to keep on file personal information about the participants, the link between that information and their data should be coded, as few persons as possible should have access to the code and the records, the information should be destroyed immediately after it is no longer required, hardcopies should be kept under lock and key, and computer files should be password protected. Increasing the sample size is a simple, though not always convenient, solution to preventing someone from guessing the identity of individual participants.
The study proceeds and is completed as planned. Sally intends to conduct a follow-up Generalization Probe nearby the children's homes to explore the long-term effects of the experimental video. To do so, she needs to retain the children's names and phone numbers in her files so that she can contact their parents at a later date to make arrangements. To keep her records confidential, names and phone numbers are linked to the data through code, and only Sally and her two graduate students have access to this code. This was made clear to the parents in advance: they had been informed about both the follow-up and the code before they gave their consent. Soon after the first Generalization Probe, one of the two graduate students begins teaching at the school where the study is being conducted. In his Ph.D. proposal, he hypothesizes, based on a controversial theory of his, a correlation between a child's GPA and how that child had earlier responded to the confederate's enticement. He uses his access to the code and to the students' academic records to obtain the information required to run the statistical test.
The study proceeds and is completed as planned. Sally intends to conduct a follow-up Generalization Probe nearby the children's homes to explore the long-term of the experimental video. To do so, she needs to retain the children's names and phone numbers in her files so that she can contact their parents at a later date to make arrangements. To keep her records confidential, names and phone numbers are linked to the data through code, and only Sally and her two graduate students have access to this code. This was made clear to the parents in advance: they had been informed about both the follow-up and the code before they gave their consent. Soon after the first Generalization Probe, one of the two graduate students begins teaching at the school where the study is being conducted. In his Ph.D. proposal, he hypothesizes, based on a controversial theory of his, a correlation between a child's GPA and how that child had earlier responded to the confederate's enticement. He contacts the parents, tells them about this new study, and asks them for their consent to access their children's academic records.
In the first item, Sally does a good job protecting the participants' anonymity. However, her graduate student using his position to gain access to the students' academic records is inappropriate because there was no prior consent from the parents for him to do this (see Principle D). Some parents may be unwilling to share information about their child's school performance. Parents of children with low GPAs may be especially sensitive to this issue. In addition, while many parents may be willing to allow their child to participate in an applied study from which their child stands to directly benefit (i.e., he or she learns better self-protection skills), they may be less willing in regards to a study with a more basic focus (i.e., theory testing). The parents may strongly disagree with the controversial theory and want no part of it, and they may see the investigator as the only one who stands to gain from such a study.
In the second item, the graduate student behaves more ethically in attempting to get consent from the parents to access their children's academic records. Had Sally anticipated that the data from her study could be used for other purposes, then she should have informed the parents of this possibility when obtaining their original consent. In this way, the parents would be less surprised when contacted by the graduate student and perhaps feel less pressured to say yes to his request (see Principle F). The graduate student must be cautious not to use a "foot-in-the-door" technique; research shows that participants are "more likely to comply with a larger request if they had previously complied with a smaller one" (Koocher & Keith-Spiegler, 1998, p. 418; based on Freedman & Fraser, 1966).