> were recruited and received course credit for participation I think it is ironic that a research into morality was conducting by coercing student participant

> were recruited and received course credit for participation I think it is ironic that a research into morality was conducting by coercing student participants into the research. In academic courses, it is common for students and lecturers to benchmark students (and award final grades) based the rank of students ordered by marks, and so giving students marks for something is also punishing students who don't get the marks. Getting research participation by threatening a punishment such as a loss of rank in the class for those who don't participate is coercive, and it casts both the researchers and UCSD (and its human ethics committee) in bad light. Coercive research is also less likely to be accurate - in this case, it brings up the alternative explanation that the science words prompted students to think about their courses, which might be the sole reason they are participating in the study, putting them into exam mentality so they give the answers they think they are 'supposed' to give.