Ethical Issues In Miligram's Obedience

Abstract

This paper will explain two different studies in social psychology that have crossed the line ethically. The study done my Miligram on obedience will be explained, as will the results. It will be determined as to whether his approach was ethical and what could have been done differently. The second study examined will be the prison study done by Zimbardo. This study will be explained along with the findings. We will discuss whether the study was done ethically and what things could have been done differently in order for it to be more ethical.

Introduction

Psychologists often deal with serious ethical questions when it comes to experiments or studies done. There are many reasons for this. First, most psychological experiments rely heavily on the study of humans and their right to be treated in a respectful way which may be violated by a careless experimenter. A second reason for this would be that the findings of psychological research do not always reveal what would seem to be pleasant or acceptable facts about human nature in society. The final reason is that psychological research may lead to the discovery of methods that may be used for social control.

There have been many social psychology experiments that have been conducted over the years. The two that most know about are Miligram's study on obedience and Zimbardo's prison study. Both have been questioned over the years as to if they were done ethically. If these experiments were done today what changes would need to be made in order for them to conducted ethically, if any. Each study done resulted with findings that were not positive for society to learn about human nature, but each was conducted in a way they believed was to get the best result.

Miligram's Obedience Study

Miligram's study on obedience took place in July of 1961. The experiment was designed to show the issue between obeying authority and the personal conscience and whether an ordinary person would obey instructions to harm another person, as what was done in WWII. Miligram began by placing and advertisement for male participants to be part of a study of learning at Yale University (Benjamin& Simpson, 2009). The participants were grouped with another person; one would be the learner, the other the teacher. This study was fixed, as the participant always was chosen as the teacher and the learner was an associate of Miligram's. The learner was taken into a room where electrodes were attached to his arms. The teacher and researcher were in another room where there was an electric shock generator with switches marked from 15 volt to 450 volts (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). The first would give a slight shock to the learner and it would go up to a dangerous and severe shock.

The learner was given a list of words paired together to remember and the teacher's job was to ask the learner to remember the pairs from a list of different choices. The teacher was told to give an electric shock for each incorrect answer given by the learner, increasing the level of shock. The learner gave mostly wrong answers, which was purposely, and for each of those, the teacher gave an electric shock. If the teacher refused to administer the shock, the experimenter would ask them to please continue, explaining that the experiment requires them to continue and it is essential to continue with the experiment.

The outcome of the experiment showed that 65% of the participants continued on to 450 volts, which was the highest level and all participants involved continued and reached 300 volts (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). This proved Miligram's point that ordinary people are more likely to follow orders by an authority figure, even if it is to the extent of killing someone. Obedience to authority is ingrained in each person, as we are told growing up to obey our parents, teachers, and others in authoritative positions. Although, if this experiment were done today, the outcome may be a bit different, as not everyone is brought up these day to respect or obey an authority figure.

Ethical Issues with Miligram's Experiment

There were ethical issues surrounding this study. The first was deception. Each participant was deceived as they believed they were shocking a real person, and were not aware that the learner was an associate of Miligrams. This experiment could not be done today as the ethical standards today require that participants in any experiment are not deceived and must be aware of any consequences. These participants were also exposed to high stress situations that may have had the potential to cause psychological harm. There was no protection of the participants or to their psychological well-being before the experiment. A positive to the experiment is that Miligram did debrief each participant fully after the experiment and did follow up with each after a period of time to ensure there was no harm done. The follow up research after the experiment showed no long-term psychological effects on the participants (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009).

Experiment if Done Today

If this experiment were to be done today, it would be important to have an ethical code in place for the well-being of the participants. When something is done unethically in an experiment it may cause the results to not completely answer the correct question. In Miligram's study (1963), it was to measure obedience in people, but instead it tested people's reaction to their personal moral judgments. Obedience is if the participants shocked the learner without any question, since the experimenters had to encourage the participants to continue at times, this did not show complete obedience, it showed a fear of consequence. If one were to do this experiment today, it would be wise to inform the participants that it is an experiment about testing obedience. If the participants refused to continue once in a normal tone with not pressure, they would be allowed to stop. This would ensure that obedience is being measured and not the response to fear or obligation.

Zimbardo's Prison Study

Zimbardo's prison study was done in 1971. A fake prison in a Stanford basement was set up and male students were recruited when they responded to an ad in the newspaper asking for volunteers for a study in psychological effects of prison life. All 24 students that were chosen to participate were tested and were proven to be stable psychologically and earned $15 a day (Drury, Hutchens, Shuttlesworth, & White, 2012). The group of participants was split into 2 groups, guards and prisoners. Each group was chosen randomly with the flip of a coin. As this experiment began