The five ethics of research are a set of principles outlined in the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice, and Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity. These five principles guide how researchers should treat participants, handle data, and conduct themselves professionally. They build on an older foundation, the Belmont Report of 1979, which established three core principles (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice) for research involving human subjects. The APA expanded that framework into five principles, most recently amended in January 2017.
1. Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
This principle captures two obligations in one: do good and do no harm. Researchers must design studies that maximize possible benefits while minimizing possible harms to participants. That means carefully weighing whether the knowledge gained from a study justifies the risks involved, whether those risks are physical discomfort, emotional distress, or social consequences like stigma.
The “nonmaleficence” side sets a hard floor: do not cause pain or suffering, do not deprive people of something they need, and do not put participants in danger that isn’t clearly justified. The “beneficence” side goes further, asking researchers to actively promote the well-being of participants, not just avoid hurting them. In practice, this is the principle that review boards weigh most heavily when deciding whether a study should move forward. Federal regulations require that risks to subjects are minimized and that any remaining risks are reasonable relative to the anticipated benefits.
2. Fidelity and Responsibility
Researchers have a duty to be trustworthy and accountable, both to their participants and to the broader scientific community. Fidelity means keeping promises and honoring commitments made during a study. If you tell a participant their data will remain confidential, that commitment is binding. If a study protocol has been approved, the researcher is expected to follow it.
Responsibility extends beyond individual studies. Researchers are expected to uphold professional standards, manage conflicts of interest, and contribute to the integrity of their field. This includes accurately reporting how a study was conducted so other researchers can evaluate and replicate the work. When fidelity breaks down, the consequences ripple outward: published trials become unreliable, and public trust in science erodes.
3. Integrity
Integrity in research means honesty, accuracy, and consistency between what a researcher says and what they do. The core obligations are straightforward: do not fabricate data, do not falsify results, do not misrepresent methods or findings. Researchers should report data honestly in all scientific communications, including negative results that don’t support their hypothesis.
This principle also addresses deception. Some research designs, particularly in psychology, involve temporarily withholding information from participants to avoid biasing their responses. Integrity requires that any deception is justified by the study’s scientific value, that no reasonable alternative exists, and that participants are fully debriefed afterward. Strive for sincerity, keep your promises and agreements, and aim for consistency of thought and action.
4. Justice
Justice asks a simple but powerful question: who receives the benefits of research, and who bears the burdens? An injustice occurs when one group is denied a benefit it deserves without good reason, or when a burden is imposed on a group unfairly. In research, this plays out most visibly in how participants are selected.
The Belmont Report specifically warned against recruiting from vulnerable populations, such as people in institutions, welfare recipients, or certain racial and ethnic minorities, simply because they were easy to access or less likely to resist. Justice demands that the people enrolled in a study reflect the population that will eventually benefit from the results. Heart disease research that historically excluded women is a well-known example of this principle being violated: findings were applied to everyone, but the data came from a narrow slice of the population.
When research involves participants in developing countries, justice requires two things: the same safety standards that apply domestically must be met, and the communities where the research is conducted must be among the beneficiaries of whatever the study produces. No group should bear the risks of research while another group reaps the rewards.
5. Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity
Every person who participates in research is entitled to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. This principle rests on the idea that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents capable of making their own decisions. People with diminished autonomy, such as children or individuals with cognitive impairments, are entitled to additional protections.
In practice, respect for rights and dignity starts with informed consent. Before joining a study, participants must receive a clear explanation of what the research involves, how long it will take, what risks and benefits to expect, how their confidentiality will be maintained, and who to contact with questions. They must also be told, plainly, that participation is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time without penalty.
This principle also reaches beyond individual participants. Research should not stigmatize people or groups, undermine anyone’s human rights based on social characteristics, or promote the idea that one group is inherently superior or inferior to another. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all humans are “free and equal in dignity and rights,” serves as a touchstone here.
How These Principles Are Enforced
In the United States, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) serve as the primary gatekeepers. Before any study involving human participants can begin, an IRB reviews the research protocol, the informed consent documents, and the overall study design. The board has the authority to approve, require changes to, or reject a study entirely. Its central purpose is to ensure that appropriate steps protect the rights and welfare of participants.
IRBs check that risks are minimized, that the risk-benefit ratio is reasonable, that consent procedures comply with federal and state law, and that the study design is sound enough to produce valid results. They also conduct periodic reviews of ongoing studies and can audit a study’s consent process if concerns arise.
When researchers violate these principles, the consequences can be serious. Research misconduct, which includes conducting studies without ethical review, failing to obtain proper consent, exposing participants to harm, or breaching confidentiality, can lead to retraction of published articles, loss of funding, and professional sanctions. Duplicate publications can violate copyright law. Beyond formal penalties, violations damage a researcher’s reputation and erode the public’s willingness to participate in future studies.
The Belmont Report’s Three vs. the APA’s Five
If you’ve seen references to “three principles of research ethics” elsewhere, that likely comes from the Belmont Report, published in 1979 by a national commission created in the wake of research scandals like the Tuskegee syphilis study. The Belmont Report identified three principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. These remain the legal backbone of human subjects research in the U.S.
The APA’s five principles, first published in 1973 and refined over decades, expand on that foundation. They split beneficence into its own category alongside nonmaleficence, add fidelity and responsibility as a standalone principle, and introduce integrity as a distinct obligation. They also broaden respect for persons into a fuller concept of respecting rights and dignity. The two frameworks are complementary. The Belmont Report’s three principles underpin federal regulations, while the APA’s five principles provide a more detailed ethical map for researchers in psychology and related fields.