The five named ethical issues
11.1.8 names five issues, each with a mark-scheme meaning. Informed consent — participants agree after being told what the study involves. Deception — participants are deliberately misled, or key information withheld. Confidentiality — data and results kept private, not in identifiable form. Right to withdraw — participants may leave at any time and remove their data. Protection of participants — no harm, physical or psychological, beyond everyday life.
Every issue has a way to deal with it
11.1.8 asks "how to deal with" issues, so learn a solution for each. Consent: explain the aim, then get agreement (for a child, via a parent). Deception: avoid it, or keep it minimal and debrief fully. Confidentiality: use a pseudonym and store data securely. Right to withdraw: say at the start they may stop and withdraw their data. Protection: stop if distress occurs, then debrief. The debrief recurs — it gives the true aim, checks no harm and reminds of withdrawal.
Ethics must fit the participants and setting
An ethical point earns credit only if it fits the study. With children, consent and debriefing count only when routed through a parent or guardian — "get the child's consent" misses this. And not every issue arises everywhere: where people are observed in a genuinely public place, doing what they normally do, a lack of informed consent is often not creditworthy. Before naming an issue, ask whether it really arises for these participants in this setting.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
State an ethical issue, not a method flaw
Asked for an ethical issue, many write about validity, reliability, sampling, variables or personality — none is ethical, so they score zero. An ethical issue is about the rights of participants: consent, deception, confidentiality, right to withdraw, or protection from harm. Ask: is it about how participants were treated? "The sample was too small" is a method flaw.
On a "state one ethical issue" item, many candidates answered about variables, validity, reliability, sampling or personality (June 2022 P2 Q4b).
Right to withdraw — name the action
Right to withdraw is often written as a bare label. A creditworthy definition names the action: the participant can stop and leave at any time, and have their data removed afterwards, without penalty. "They had the right to withdraw" just repeats the term. Dealing with it needs the action too — tell participants at the start they may stop and remove their data.
A right-to-withdraw definition must state what withdrawing means, not repeat the phrase (June 2019 P2 Q1b).
Confidentiality needs a concrete method
Confidentiality is often answered at definition level — "keep the data private" — with no sign of how. The scheme wants the AO1 point plus the applied method. AO1: data and results are kept private, not in identifiable form. Method: use a pseudonym or participant number instead of the real name, stored securely. Fit the method to the participants in the scenario.
Confidentiality needs the AO1 definition plus the applied method, e.g. a pseudonym (Nov 2021 P2 Q01b).
Consent and confidentiality are different
Both sound like "being looked after", so consent and confidentiality get merged — but they protect different things. Consent happens before: the participant is told what is involved and agrees to take part. Confidentiality applies during and after: data are kept private so no one is identified. A study can respect one and breach the other; deal with each separately.
Deception isn't always banned
A common belief is that any deception makes a study unethical. In fact it should be avoided, but is sometimes acceptable when a study could not work otherwise, provided it is minimal, does no serious harm, and is followed by a full debrief. So it is a judgement — was the deception necessary and minor, and put right by a debrief? — not "deception, therefore unethical".
For children, consent goes via parents
When participants are children, saying "get the child's informed consent" misses the point. A young child cannot consent fully, so consent must come from a parent or guardian, and debriefing is routed the same way; the child may also give simple assent. Applying the adult safeguard to children loses the application (AO2) mark, because it no longer fits these participants.
With children, informed consent and debriefing only count if routed through parents or guardians (June 2023 P2 Q1b).
Public observation may not need consent
Students reach for "there was no informed consent, so it is unethical" automatically. But ethics must fit the setting. Where people are observed in a genuinely public place, doing what they normally do, a lack of informed consent is often not creditworthy — they are watched, not deceived or harmed. Check the setting first: for public behaviour it may not apply.
In a public place, a lack of informed consent would not be creditworthy (June 2024 P1 Q23b).
Deal with an issue: name, safeguard, apply
Work ethics questions in order: name the issue; give the safeguard (AO1) — consent, a debrief, or a pseudonym; apply it (AO2) to these participants ("because they are 8, consent comes from parents", not "get consent"); then judge it (AO3) if asked.
AO3 cannot be awarded without AO2
An ethical evaluation that never uses the scenario scores nothing: AO3 cannot be given without AO2. Tie the ethics to the study first — its actual participants, setting and procedure — then judge. Naming the researcher or repeating the stem is not application.
Use the debrief as your default fix
To deal with deception or protect participants, the debrief is the reliable answer — describe it, don't just name it. A debrief gives the true aim, checks the participant is unharmed, and reminds them they may withdraw their data. Tie each part to the actual study.
An ethical issue is a way a study could treat its participants wrongly. The specification names five, and for each you must also know how to deal with it.
Informed consent — participants agree to take part after being told what the study involves.
Deception — participants are deliberately misled, or important information is withheld.
Confidentiality — participants' personal data and results are kept private and not shared in identifiable form.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
