Among multiple issues including giving misleading information, the most dominate is the lack of consent Milgram received from his subjects to participate in such a test (102). While I do see that this is immoral, there is no way that Milgram could have completed his experiments effectively if he had done it morally. The first issue is if he explains what is actually going to happen during the experiments, that would obviously hurt the integrity of his results. Also, going back to how the experiments help us, if those who participated knew what was going to happen, it wouldn’t have affected them as severely. It was the shock that the experiment gave that brought their life choices into question.
Ethical Research Frances Jeffcoat HSC: 320 2 December 2014 Abstract This paper explores the history and ethics of research. This paper will look at two different types of research that are commonly used today. The focus of the research is clinical and basic science. Clinical science is the use of humans in an experiment or study to further knowledge about a particular aspect.
Seventy five responses made it back to Zimbardo, twenty one were selected, half of them as guards and the other half as prisoners (Zimbardo p. 364). The primary
These ethical issues talked about above could have been easily avoided and could have impacted the experiment drastically. If Zimbardo only had the role to oversee the experiment, the experiment could have ended a lot sooner and could have protected a lot of the inmates. Since Zimbardo was serving as warden, he ultimately had the final decision of what goes on. He wanted to see the experiment out, so made decisions that allowed the experiment to go on when in reality it should have been stopped. Very early on in the experiment, the guards needed to take charge and show that they are the ones to obey and listen too.
Prisoners were stripped of their identities, forced to wear uniforms, and referred to using assigned numbers rather than their names. This deindividuation (the perceived loss of personal individuality) led to a breakdown of social norms and ethical boundaries, with some participants experiencing severe emotional trauma. Another ethical issue with the Stanford Prison Experiment was the lack of proper oversight and intervention. Zimbardo, in his role as the lead researcher, became so immersed in the role of prison superintendent that he failed to recognize the unethical behavior unfolding within the experiment, even as a psychologist. It was only after a graduate student raised concerns about the treatment of the participants that the experiment was prematurely halted after just six days instead of the planned two weeks.
Social psychology is researched by using many different methods. These methods include observational methods, experimental methods, and correlation methods. However, over the years, some things about social psychology have been deemed unethical. For example, deception, which is when there are false participants, false cover stories, or anything untrue is used to hide or change any part of the research. Despite being slightly ethically questionable, social psychology has had some very well-known experiments like the Muzafer Sherif's Robbers' Cave Experiment, Leon Festinger cognitive dissonance experiment, and the Milgram
The participants were randomly selected by flipping a coin. They were either made a guard or an inmate; There were 10 inmates and 11 guards. Zimbardo wanted the “criminals” to feel like real criminals and treated like real criminals. He had the participants arrested at their own homes and taken to the police station to go through the whole process of
Zimbardo was the head researcher, but he transformed into the “prison warden” and lost his perspective on how bad the conditions for the experiment had become, as he admits. He said, “by the third day I was sleeping in my office. I had become the superintendent of the Stanford county jail. That was who I was: I'm not the researcher at all. Even my posture changes—when I walk through the prison yard, I'm walking with my hands behind my back, which I never in my life do, the way generals walk when they're inspecting troops,” (Ratnesar).
The experiment was executed well. Yet, there are unethical practices happened during the experiment. First, the participants were not fully informed about the experiment. The researchers did not explain to the participants the processes in conducting the experiment. The participants were not informed that they would be arrested by cops in their homes.
Ethical issues that occurred in this experiment. Two Ethical issues that occurred in this experiment were lack of fully informed consent, and not protecting the participants against harm. (Cherry, 2023) The researchers did not give details to the participants about the processes in conducting the experiment. The Participants have begun to be part of the experiment without fully informed about the experiment as well as not having signed their consent.
Psychological assessments commonly extract confidential information from test participants. It is essential that test administrators and psychologists (practitioners) ensure that this information is used in a way that upholds the rights and privacy of participants. Practitioners can maintain a high ethical and professional standard by observing the Australian Psychological Society’s (APS) Code of Ethics (“The Code”) (Code of Ethics, 2007). The standards of informed consent and confidentiality (standards A.3.
Zimbardo took part in the experiment as the prison supervisor. If this were a truly thought-through experiment, he would have had no part in the experiment rather than simply reviewing and analyzing the results. Rather, he overlooked many issues within the makeshift prison, such as disputes, and encouraged them to perform as he wanted. In “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment”, it was stated that Zimbardo’s interpretation of events was far too shaped by his expectations, he wanted them to turn on each other just because they had new roles with more or less power than they had before. He was searching far too hard for results, which led to the ‘experiment’ failure.
Name : Muhammed Irshad Madonna ID : 250509 Subject : Medical Ethics Due Date : 8/01/2018 Paper : 1-The Milgram Experiment The Stanley Milgram Experiment is a famous study about obedience in psychology which has been carried out by a Psychologist at the Yale University named, Stanley Milgram. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. In July 1961 the experiment was started for researching that how long a person can harm another person by obeying an instructor.
Any study that involves subjects concerning human beings should be approved first from the ethics committee before being effected (Chiarelli & Cockburn, 2002). Further, if the paper ever sought for ethical approval is not being mentioned in any section of the article concerning its ethical issues. This is one of the pitfalls noticed at the beginning of the
(2009) and Fridlund et al. (2012) respectively. However, these hypotheses have gained much traction in the wider psychological community despite Powell, Digdon, Harris and Smithson (in press) theorizing a much more compelling candidate, Albert Barger. Ethics in psychology is a contemporary consideration and this fresh perspective has dictated a popular practice of re-examining the ethics of historical experiments with superfluous criticism. It is plausible that the outrage over possible unethical practice has distracted from the more parsimonious option presented by Powell et al.
