When conducting research, psychologists are ethically obligated to:

Psychologists are ethically obligated to acknowledge alternative hypotheses when conducting research because doing so enhances the integrity and validity of their work. By considering and discussing alternative explanations for their findings, psychologists demonstrate intellectual honesty and a commitment to scientific rigor. This practice helps to ensure that research conclusions are well-founded and that the interpretations made are not biased or one-sided. Acknowledging alternative hypotheses also contributes to a more robust scientific dialogue within the psychology community, encouraging further investigation and refinement of theories.

In contrast, the other options do not align with ethical research practices. Promoting findings for personal gain undermines objectivity and can introduce bias into the research. Limiting data sharing strictly to essential personnel may restrict the transparency that is vital for the validation of research findings. Lastly, while confidentiality has its place in protecting participants' privacy, findings themselves are typically not confidential and should be made available for public scrutiny and discussion, assuming there are no specific ethical or legal reasons to withhold them. Acknowledging alternative hypotheses stands as a foundational ethical obligation, promoting the advancement of knowledge in the field.