Lecture Ethics An intro to some important interaction laws

Exercise Paper helicopter experiment (lost my Fitt´s

law files Free experiment supervision/help

Next – and last - week Q&A session + exam discussion

Exam date stands – Bill Gates to blaim!

The experiment was created to explain some of the horrors taking place during WW2

Many war-criminals claimed they were ”just following orders”

Milligrams question was whether the Germans were just cold-hearted, or if what was happening was a group psychology phenomenon that could happen to anyone given the right conditions Can everyone become a war criminal?

The experiment aimed at getting an answer to the question:

“For how long will someone continue to give shocks to another person if they are told to do so, even if they thought they could be seriously hurt?” i.e. will people do morally wrong things

just because an authority figure tells them to?

Milligram created a ”shock generator” with 30 switches Each switch induces electric shock, from

15-450 volts Shock level was marked: ▪ Moderate – 75-120 volts▪ Strong – 135 – 180 volts ▪ .....▪ Danger – Severe Shock – 375- 420 volts▪ XXX – 435 – 450 volts

The shock generator was phony – it just produced sounds

In the text, 40 volunteer subjects were informed that their payment was for showing up – they could leave when they wanted

Next they met an experimenter – an actor posing as a distinguished professor – and another participant – a fake as well.

The two ”participants” drew lots about who was to be the ”teacher” and the ”learner” in the ”memory and learning experiment”

The lottery was faked, and the real participant always ended up as the ”teacher”

The ”teacher” then observed the fake participant being strapped to a chair with electrodes attached

They were then seated in another room with the shock generator, unable to see the ”learner”

The ”teacher” was then instructed to teach word-pairs to the ”learner”.

When the learner made a mistake, the ”teacher” was instructed to administer a shock, 15 volts stronger each time The ”teacher” was given a small 45 volt shock to

make it look like the shock generator was real

The experimenter was in the same room as the ”teacher”. If the ”teacher” grew concerned, the experimenter would use predefined ”prods” to try and make the ”teacher” continue the experiment.

The experimenter started with mild prods, who then grew more severe and authoritarian each time the subject contacted the experimenter

If asked, the experimenter said he was responsible for any damages to the ”learner”, which gave many ”teachers” a sense of relief to continue

The ”learner” was in radio contact with the ”teacher”.

After specific voltages, pre-recorded audio would play, which the ”teacher” could hear – for example:

75 volts: ”Ugh!!!” 180 volts: ”Ugh!!! I can´t stand the pain. Let me

out of here!” 285 volts: Screaming 345 volts +: Silence

Prior to the experiment, experts thought maybe 1-3% of the ”teachers” would not stop giving shocks

It was believed you would need to be a psychopath to give lethal shocks to a stranger

The original result had all 40 subjects obeying up to 300 volt shocks

25 of 40 continued up to the maximum level of 375 volts

Many participants showed signs of tension – 3 had uncontrollable seizures

So 65% never stopped giving shocks

Even after the ”learner” had grown completely silent

Why? It is believed that there is a strong innate behavior in people to do as they are told, especially from authority persons

Further studies showed that:

1.Women are about the same obedient as men

2.Distance to the victim affects the obedience

3.Distance to the person ordering you affects the obedience

4.The appearance of the authority person and his rank can increase or decrease the obedience

At the time of the experiment (1960s) Europe was recovering from WW2, and was looking for answers

By the stricter controls of today, the experiment would not have been allowed – for example because: The participants were deceived about the purpose of the

experiment They were not made aware of the consequences There was a risk that the participants would suffer short-

term emotional stress (they thought they caused harm to another person

There was a risk that participants would suffer long-term emotional stress (they found they would harm someone just because someone told them to do) [independent study found no long-term effects]

Another problem of deception-based experiments is that people may stop agreeing to participate in experiments

Because it becomes known that researchers use deception even research that is harmless or aimed at helping the subjects could loose participants

So, as researchers we cannot do this – but the media can

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoo-cU3Y&feature=related

Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc.

Ethics is a fuzzy concept, dependent on human morality Gives rise to lots of problems in research

In the ideal world, when running experiments, we need to make various ethical considerations

In the real world, people will often try to make us run experiments that to not adhere to ethical guidelines Money is usually involved, often

private sector

Some general considerations:

As experimenters, we have psychological power and influence over participants -

Especially if we are wearing a white lab coat or otherwise place ourselves as figures of authority

Participants are psychologically vulnerable: They do not know the full ramifications of the experiments, and are psychologically in a weaker position thant the experimenters

Historically there has been a lot of problems with unethical experimentation (nazi Germany being an excellent example) – your reputation as a professionals is equally at stake

The ethical committee

Most research institutions have some sort of ethical clearing process that one must go through in order to get approval for experimentation on humans These processes can be extensive and time-consuming

Most companies do not – they are mainly concerned about the risk of a participant suing them

Companies that by law adhere to state rules, e.g. medical companies, follow very strict ethical guidelines

Ethical clearing is typically required when research involves humans, animals, dangerous materials and radioactivity

The approval process can be ridiculously extensive

Clearing by ethical committee is in the interest of safety of the participants And the institution (lawsuits)

The APA and British Psychological Society have defined very detailed guidelines about how experimenters should behave while running experiments, and what the rights of participants are.

We should follow these.

The Code of Conduct governs how professionals should operate in their work

The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to protect the people in our care – students, patients, participants etc.

The Code of Conduct and the ethical guidelines it contain however also cover how to treat our colleagues

Let´s take a look at what the code of conduct tells us ...

First and foremost, the code of conduct barrs us from engaging in certain types of research:

”For ethical reasons, some areas of human experience and behavior may be beyond the reach of experiment, observation or other form of psychological investigation.” British Psychological Society (2000)

For example, exposing innocents to nucelar radiation is illegal to experiment with

The guiding principle of the code of conduct is that the experiment should be considered from the perspective of the participants

How does the experiment affect them? Are there any risks associated with

participation? Are the risks equal for all participants?

(children vs. adults)

It is expected that we as experimenters are aware of the risks associted with the experiment and inform our participants

There should be mutual respect and confidence between experimenter and participants

To ensure this, a number of factors need to be considered, e.g. Consent Deception Debriefing Confidentiality Protection

We should always get permission by the participants to include them in the experiment.

Participants should be informed about the objectives of the study and all aspect of the research that could influence their willingness to participate

If participants have questions, they should be answered (sometime we need to deceive participants – more on this later)

Getting concent is important for several reasons So participants cannot sue us (and the

university/company) afterwards Because researchers are in a position

of authority – e.g. using students. This relationship can pressure participants to take part in experiments they find upsetting

When working with children or adults with impairments, the consent is given by the parents/wards (loco parentis)

If – for some reason – permission cannot be obtained from parents/teachers/similar, the Ethics Committee of the organization/company is used Sometimes independent consultant in private

sector

Paying participants is tricky – it is often necessary to get participants, but can induce them to participate where they really do not want to Especially in experiments which can

involve harm, discomfort or similar problems

Consent is given via a consent form

The consent form should contain: Description of the experiment Information about the participant Rights of the participant Signature and data of participant Contact information to the experimenter

Rights of the participant: Freedom to withdraw

The consent form states that participants have the right to withdraw at any time They should still be paid

The freedom to withdraw is tricky in observational and organisatorial settings, but we must still observe the right

A participant can withdraw retrospectively – after the experiment

Misleading participants is problematic because it leads to lawsuits – oh, and also it is unethical

Sometimes it is impossible to study psychological processes without witholding information about the purpose of the study For example, to avoid false feedback from participants

In these cases, it is important to: Ensure no alternative to deception exists Ensure participants get the information as early as

possible Consult about whether the deception is ethical

Witholding information from participants is wrong if the information is likely to cause them to: Reject participating Cause them unease once debriefed Cause them to object about the experiment Cause them harm Etc.

To check, consult with individuals who share the characteristics of the participants + Ethics Committee (cover your bee-hind)

Debriefing

Following the experiment, the participants should be told what the experiment was all about Discuss the experiment, its purpose, what will happen

with the information gathered Monitor the participant to see if any unforeseen

effects have occured

Participants should be brought back to their original state If we have run an experiment that e.g. induces a

negative mood, debriefing must return them to their original mood state

Confidentiality: Almost all countries have rules governing how we treat data collected from experiments involving humans

Information obtained about individuals is confidential unless otherwise agreed in advance You will go to jail if you do not

respect confidentiality!

If anonymity cannot be guaranteed, it must be stated in the consent form and participants informed

In research, we do not publish information that can be identified back to a person Only general stuff: ”3 of 10 did not like icecream”

A good way to avoid registering personal information is to use codes: Participant 01, participant 02, etc. etc.

Protection of participants

Experimenters have a responsibility to protect participants from physical and mental harm during the experiment

The risk of harm should be no greater than in everyday life (APA guidelines) A fuzzy statement, and it brings problems ...

Participants must be informed about factors that could create a risk Typically warning about pre-existing medical

conditions

Following an experiment, participants have a right to contact the experimenter (or experimenters organization) concerning any issues to do with their well-being

Procedures for contacting the investigator must be in the consent form

When disseminating results of an experiment, the confidentiality must be respected

Not doing this can lead to harm to the participants psychological well-being (and lawsuits)

When doing research, you may obtain information about participants which they are not aware E.g. psychological or physical problems

You should inform participants if you have reason to believe their future well-being is endangered

Do not advice participants on these issues if you are not specifically trained to do so – refer to a professional Accept the limitations of your expertise, mr. Hot-

shot-researcher! (again with the authority figure)

How far are you willing to go?

The power law of practice is one of the basic laws of interaction design, just like Fitt´s law.

The law states that the logarithm of the reaction time for a particular task – such as folding an origami figure – decreases linearly with the logarithm of the number of practice trials taken

I.e., the more times you do something, the faster you become, and the relationship is log-linear (linear on log-log-scale)

It is an example of a learning curve effect on performance

Power function: RT=a*P-b + c [also an exponential function]

RT= Trial Completion Time; P=Trial Number (starting from 1 for power functions and 0 for exponential functions), and a, b, and c, are constants

Fitt´s law was published in 1954

It models the relationship in a very common situation in interaction design:

A person moving an appendage (finger, cursor) at rest to a target area that is located somewhere else

The algorith for Fitt´s law is as follows:

MT = a + b log2(2A/W) [a and b are constants, Distance, Size]

This means that the time to acquire a target is the function of the distance to and size of the target.

Note that the width of the target is calculated in a straight line from the beginning point

The relationship is logarithmic, which means that the shape of the relationship between size and reaction time is curved

This means that a small increase in size for a small object results in a large decrease in movement time

And a small increase for big objects does not make much of a difference

Interface designers have used Fitt´s law to make some rules about best practices

1) The Rule of Target Size Combines Fitt´s Law and Hick´s law

The size of the button should be proportional to its expected frequency of use

Describes the time it takes for a person to take a decision as a result of the possible choices he or she has

The law assesses cognitive information capacity in choice reaction experiments

The law basically states that people subdivide the total collection of choices into categories, eliminating about half of the remaining choices each step rather than considering each in turn (linear)

– so logarithmic relationship between number of choices and decision time – like Fitt´s law

Like Fitt´s law heavily used in interface design

Importantly, the pointing task has an initial high acceleration phase and a deceleration component

The first phase is only affected by distance to the target - bigger links do not make you more eager to go and click them!

The width of the target is important Here the task at the right side is the

easiest

Fitt´s law becomes less accurate for rectangular targets and irregular objects

In this case, the target box has been attempted increased in two directions, but only one provies a shorter movement time

2) Rule of the infinite edge

A pointing device can only go so far in any direction – monitors have edges, which have infinite target widths

For an OS, the edges are the most valuable real estate – they are the most accessible

(infinite size means infinite movement speed according to Fitt´s law)

Also, they do not require deceleration – the edges of the screen stop the cursor

In web-applications, there is currently no benefit from the rule of infinite edgres – these rarely run at full-screen

Therefore interfaces of web-based OS´ will never be as good as those that use the entire screen real estate

Experiments have also shown that the reason it is slower to point with a mouse than with our fingers lies in our ability to decelerate accurately with a mouse

This is where multi-touch monitors come in!

Fitt´s law remain one of the basic laws of interaction design – hundreds of experiments have confirmed it