An IRB, or Institutional Review Board, is a committee that reviews and approves research involving human participants before that research can begin. In psychology, where nearly every study involves people filling out surveys, undergoing behavioral tasks, or participating in experiments, the IRB acts as an independent checkpoint to make sure the research won’t cause unnecessary harm and that participants’ rights are protected.
Every university and research institution that receives federal funding is required to have an IRB. No researcher can recruit a single participant until the board has reviewed and approved the study’s design, procedures, and consent forms. This applies to everything from a senior thesis survey to a large clinical trial on therapy effectiveness.
What an IRB Actually Does
An IRB has three possible responses to a research proposal: approve it, require changes before granting approval, or reject it entirely. The board examines the full research protocol, including recruitment materials, questionnaires, scripts, and the informed consent document that participants will sign. Their core question is whether the potential benefits of the knowledge gained justify any risks to participants, and whether those risks have been minimized as much as possible.
Federal regulations spell out the specific criteria the board must verify. Risks must be minimized through sound research design. The selection of participants must be fair, meaning researchers can’t target people who are easy to pressure or exclude groups from potentially beneficial studies. Privacy and confidentiality protections must be adequate. And informed consent must be obtained from every participant before they take part.
The review doesn’t end at approval. For ongoing studies, the IRB conducts periodic check-ins to make sure the research is still following the approved plan and that no unexpected problems have emerged.
The Three Ethical Principles Behind IRB Review
IRB oversight traces back to the Belmont Report, published in 1979 by a national commission after a series of deeply unethical research scandals. The report established three principles that still guide every IRB decision today.
Respect for persons means treating participants as autonomous individuals who can make their own decisions about whether to take part. It also means providing extra protection for people with diminished autonomy, such as children or individuals with cognitive impairments. In practice, this principle is what drives the requirement for voluntary, informed consent.
Beneficence requires researchers to minimize harm and maximize potential benefits. This isn’t just about avoiding obvious physical danger. In psychology, it includes emotional distress, embarrassment, breaches of confidentiality, and the psychological impact of experimental manipulations. The IRB weighs whether the knowledge a study might produce is worth whatever discomfort participants could experience.
Justice addresses who bears the burdens of research and who reaps the benefits. Historically, vulnerable and marginalized groups were disproportionately used as research subjects while receiving little benefit. This principle requires that participant selection be equitable and that researchers not target “undesirable” populations for risky work or restrict beneficial research to favored groups.
Who Sits on an IRB
Federal regulations require each IRB to have at least five members with diverse backgrounds. The board must include at least one person whose expertise is in a scientific field and at least one member from a nonscientific area, such as law, ethics, or community advocacy. At least one member must have no affiliation with the institution at all, providing a true outsider perspective.
Members must reflect diversity in race, gender, and cultural background, and should be sensitive to community attitudes. When a board regularly reviews research involving vulnerable groups like children, prisoners, or people with impaired decision-making capacity, it should include someone with expertise in working with those populations. For psychology research specifically, the board typically includes faculty with backgrounds in behavioral science, clinical practice, and research methodology.
Three Levels of Review
Not every psychology study goes through the same review process. Federal rules define three tiers based on the level of risk to participants.
- Exempt review applies to research that poses virtually no risk. Common examples in psychology include anonymous surveys, educational tests, and observation of public behavior where participants can’t be identified. These studies still require IRB notification, but they don’t need full committee deliberation. Some exempt studies undergo a “limited IRB review” focused specifically on privacy and confidentiality protections.
- Expedited review is available when a study involves no more than minimal risk, meaning the likelihood and severity of any harm are no greater than what a person would encounter in daily life or during a routine psychological exam. One or two designated IRB members can review and approve these studies without convening the full board. Minor changes to previously approved research also qualify.
- Full board review is required for any study that doesn’t qualify as exempt or expedited. This means the entire IRB meets to discuss the protocol, and a majority of members must be present to vote. Studies involving more than minimal risk, sensitive topics, or vulnerable populations typically go through this process.
How the Submission Process Works
For a psychology researcher, the IRB process begins well before data collection. The typical sequence starts with assembling an application packet that includes the research protocol, a description of procedures, all questionnaires or instruments, recruitment materials like flyers or email scripts, and the informed consent document. The researcher’s department usually conducts an internal review first to confirm the study is scientifically sound, and a department chair signs off before the packet goes to the IRB.
After submission, the IRB sends an acknowledgment with a record number for the study. From there, the timeline depends on the level of review. Exempt and expedited reviews can take days to a few weeks. Full board reviews are tied to the committee’s meeting schedule, which is often monthly, so the process can stretch to several weeks or longer. If the board requests revisions, the researcher must respond promptly. Failing to reply within 90 days can result in the application being closed entirely.
Informed Consent Requirements
The informed consent document is one of the most scrutinized parts of any IRB application. Federal rules require it to contain several specific elements: a clear statement that the activity involves research, an explanation of the study’s purpose and expected duration, a description of what participants will be asked to do, a description of any foreseeable risks or discomfort, any expected benefits, a note on how confidentiality will be maintained, and a statement that participation is entirely voluntary with no penalty for dropping out at any time.
For studies involving more than minimal risk, the consent form must also explain what compensation or treatment is available if a participant is harmed. The language has to be understandable to a layperson, not written in academic jargon. The IRB reviews these documents closely to ensure a participant reading the form would genuinely understand what they’re agreeing to.
Deception in Psychology Research
Psychology has a unique relationship with IRBs because some studies require deception, where participants are deliberately given incomplete or misleading information about the true purpose of a study. Classic experiments on conformity, obedience, and implicit bias, for instance, wouldn’t produce valid results if participants knew exactly what was being measured.
IRBs allow deception only under strict conditions. The study must be minimal risk. The deception must be genuinely necessary to accomplish the research goals, with no alternative approach available. There can be no undisclosed risks to participants. And the researcher must provide a detailed debriefing plan explaining when, how, and by whom participants will be told the truth after their involvement ends. That debriefing must undo any effects of the false information and fully disclose everything that was withheld. IRBs will not approve deception for studies that involve more than minimal risk.
Extra Protections for Vulnerable Groups
Federal regulations single out three groups for additional safeguards in research: children, prisoners, and pregnant women (along with fetuses and neonates). Psychology research frequently involves children, so these rules come up often.
Research with children may require assent from the child in addition to permission from a parent or guardian. Assent is a simplified version of consent appropriate to the child’s age and understanding. Studies involving more than minimal risk with children are permitted only under specific conditions, and the requirements differ depending on whether the research offers a direct benefit to the child. When child participants are wards of the state, an independent advocate may be required in addition to a legal guardian.
For prisoners, the concern is that the conditions of confinement may make truly voluntary participation impossible. Research involving prisoners requires additional IRB findings, and federally funded studies cannot proceed until the Office for Human Research Protections issues written approval. Beyond these three groups, IRBs also pay close attention to research involving individuals with impaired decision-making capacity or people who are economically or educationally disadvantaged, as these populations may be more susceptible to coercion or undue influence.
The Federal Rules That Govern IRBs
IRBs operate under a set of federal regulations known informally as the “Common Rule,” codified at 45 CFR Part 46. This policy was significantly revised in 2018, expanding the categories of research that qualify for exempt review and updating informed consent requirements. A final rule effective October 2024 made technical updates to align protections for specific populations (children, prisoners, pregnant women) with the 2018 revisions, though no substantive changes to oversight requirements were introduced.
The FDA maintains a parallel set of regulations for research involving drugs, devices, and biologics. In practice, most psychology research falls under the Common Rule rather than FDA oversight, unless the study involves a medical device or pharmaceutical intervention. Universities typically maintain a single IRB that handles both sets of regulations when needed.