Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Apply ethics to human and animal research

Use the syllabus ethics principles to identify risks, protect participants and evaluate animal research procedures.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · MC-ETHICS

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 syllabus. These lessons are independent study support, not Cambridge material, official mark schemes or awarded grades. No lesson reproduces a research article or Cambridge question.

Before you begin

  • This pathway supports the 2028–2030 syllabus only. AS candidates take Papers 1 and 2; A Level candidates also study two of the four specialist options and take Papers 3 and 4. The separate 2027 syllabus is not mapped here.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

Which principle is about letting a participant stop taking part?

What you will learn

  • Apply human-participant guidance
  • Apply animal-research guidance
  • Explain how ethical choices can affect method and evidence
  • Evaluate an unfamiliar research plan

Human research should protect rights and wellbeing

Consider minimising harm and maximising benefit; valid consent, including informed consent; the right to withdraw; lack of deception; confidentiality; privacy; and debriefing. These principles guide planning and evaluation, rather than serving as a checklist detached from the scenario. Consent should be understandable and voluntary, and participants should know how their data will be used.

If limited deception is essential, the researcher must weigh the scientific reason against the possible harm and ensure suitable safeguards and debriefing. Privacy and confidentiality are different: privacy concerns access to a person or their activities; confidentiality concerns how information they provide is protected. Removing names does not guarantee privacy if a person can still be recognised from details.

Animal research requires specific welfare decisions

Evaluate harm and benefit and consider replacement: could the question be answered without animals? Consider whether the species is appropriate to the research question and whether the number of animals is justified. Procedures should address pain, suffering and distress, housing, and reward, deprivation or aversive stimuli. State the actual procedure and its safeguards; do not assume an animal study is ethical merely because the scientific aim is important.

Ethical review should consider the whole procedure, including housing, handling, duration and what happens at the end. If welfare risks cannot be reduced sufficiently, the study should be redesigned or not conducted. Local legal and institutional requirements also apply.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

A proposed animal study uses more animals than needed to produce reliable evidence. Which issue is directly raised?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A researcher plans a covert observation of identifiable students in a private support group. Name two ethical concerns and a safer change.

Show the worked solution
  1. Covert recording may remove informed consent.
  2. The private group and identifiable records raise privacy and confidentiality concerns.
  3. Use a consent-based setting, minimise identifying data and explain storage and withdrawal procedures.

Answer The plan raises consent, privacy and confidentiality concerns. A safer plan obtains valid consent in an appropriate setting, minimises identifiable information and explains withdrawal and data handling.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

Participants are told a memory task is about concentration, but the researcher actually measures conformity. Identify one ethical risk and a safeguard.

Give me a hint

The stated purpose differs from the real purpose.

Compare my reasoning
  1. This involves deception and may affect informed consent.
  2. The researcher should justify why the information is withheld and minimise possible harm.
  3. A prompt, clear debrief should explain the true purpose and allow participants to raise concerns or withdraw data where feasible.

The plan uses deception, so consent and potential harm need review; minimise the deception and provide a full debrief with a clear data-withdrawal procedure where feasible.

Look for these in your work

  • Ethical issue identified
  • Necessity and harm considered
  • Relevant safeguard described
2 · Independent

A study records identifiable conversations in a clinic waiting area without telling people. Explain privacy and confidentiality concerns separately.

Give me a hint

Consider observation access and later data handling.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Recording conversations in a sensitive setting intrudes on privacy.
  2. Keeping identifiable recordings or sharing them without protection breaches confidentiality.
  3. Consent, a non-intrusive setting, data minimisation and secure access should be considered.

Privacy is breached by covert access to sensitive conversations; confidentiality is at risk if identifiable recordings are not protected.

Look for these in your work

  • Privacy linked to intrusion
  • Confidentiality linked to information handling
  • Practical safeguards offered
3 · Transfer

A researcher proposes using animals in a study of a learning aid. State the questions an ethical review should ask before approval.

Give me a hint

Cover the syllabus principles for alternatives, species, numbers and procedures.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Could the question be answered using people, existing evidence or another method instead (replacement)?
  2. Is this species relevant, and is the number of animals justified?
  3. What pain, distress, housing, deprivation or aversive procedures are involved, and how can harm be reduced or avoided?

Review replacement, species relevance, justified numbers and every procedure, including harm, pain, distress, housing and reward or deprivation; redesign or reject the plan if risks are not justified and controlled.

Look for these in your work

  • Replacement considered
  • Species and numbers addressed
  • Procedure and welfare evaluated

Common mistakes

  • Treating debriefing as a replacement for consent or harm prevention.
  • Confusing anonymity with confidentiality or assuming removal of names makes data unidentifiable.
  • Ignoring withdrawal because participants already consented.
  • Discussing animal ethics only in terms of the research benefit.
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

How do privacy and confidentiality differ?

Compare with the explanation

Privacy concerns access to a person or their activities; confidentiality concerns protecting information they provide.

A study can protect stored answers but still intrude on private behaviour, or vice versa.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

Which ethical principle is relevant, what specific risk creates the concern, and what change would reduce it?

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.