Describe how different points in the Nuremburg Code relate the ...

[FButt]

Describe how different points in the Nuremburg Code relate the degree of potential risk associated with the value of the results of an experiment.
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

In the research by Sechrist and Sangor (2001) on prejudice, why did their use of a factorial design (with interactions) provide them with more information than a single variable would have?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[Swizqar]

Answer to Question 1

The Nuremburg Code stipulates that research must contribute to existing knowledge (Point 2); further, no research should be conducted if it will not produce results that are useful within a discipline (Point 3). If experimenters notice that a participant is at risk, they must terminate the research immediately (Point 10). Given that research has merit, any risks associated with it must be less than the potential gain from doing the study (Point 6).

Answer to Question 2

In their study, they identified two IVs: whether a person was high or low in prejudice and whether they thought people held the same attitudes that they did. The interaction effects were important here because they showed that people altered the distance they sat from a black confederate of the experimenter depending on whether they thought other people on their campus had similar views.
People high in prejudice sat closer to the confederate when they thought others on campus thought differently about race than they did compared to the case when they thought others were in agreement with them. People low in prejudice reversed this pattern, sitting farther from the black confederate when they thought people were generally in agreement with them. On whole, though, those low in prejudice sat closer than people higher in prejudice.