Middlemist Case Study

Middlemist’s ethics
Middlemist, Knowles and Matter (1976) investigated an interesting study looking at the relationship between how invasion of personal space increases arousal. The experiment was conducted at a Midwestern U.S University in a men’s restroom where there were three urinals in which the experimenter could control what stall was going to be used by each participants, it is control by a confederate stationed in the middle urinal and a “Don’t use, washing urinal” sign with sponge and bucket was places at rightmost urinal. Experimenter then observed the participants from one of the stalls through periscopic prism hidden by a stack of books and timed the delay and start of urination with stopwatch (Middlemist, Knowles & Matter, 1976).

This can be more difficult than it sounds, because it can be difficult to anticipate how participants will react to a study. It is usually easy to recognize when someone’s physical safety is in jeopardy, but it is complicated to recognize when a person’s emotional well-being is at risk. Researchers have an obligation to minimize any procedures that have the potential to cause harm to your participants. In general, avoid designs in which participants could be humiliated, embarrassed, scared, anxious, stressed, saddened, or discouraged. The participants’ physical and mental state should be the same as when they arrived for your experiment then by the end your experiment.
Part of protecting the dignity of the participants is by respecting their privacy (Code of Ethics and Conduct, 2009). In general, researcher may only observe behavior that is performed in public and in a setting were people are expected to be observe which is not in the lavatory while they are urinating. Although, Middlemist and colleagues (1976), tries to argue that public restroom are in a certain ways public but then the method of observing the participants in a toilet cubicle using a periscopic prism hidden in a stack of books which could directly see participant’s lower torso and urine

Researchers need to explain to the participants about certain information, then the participants consider whether to participate or not. Without consent form, participants would not know what they are getting themselves into, how long would the observation will be or is there any potential harm for the participants themselves. When doing an experiment without informed consent, research would not know their participants background history where they have experienced being stalk by people. In this case, Middlemist, Knowles and Matter (1976) could put someone’s mental state vulnerable because it might be one out the sixty the participants has trauma people observing them without permission. If the participants realized that they are being observed it could lead to anxiety. Even though, there is not informed consent given, researcher could give the participants debriefing after the experiment to avoid participants’ acts differently if they know they are being observe because this experiment need to be in a realistic setting. With debriefing, researcher could explain to participants about their experiment and whether they have any questions regarding the experiment. Researcher then could ask consent from the participants because all experiments participants must be debriefed and provide consent that their information can be used as data for