ETHICAL ISSUES

One psychological study that was unethical was Milgrams study into obedience to authority. He deceived his participants into believing that they were administering real electric shocks to a real person. However, that person was a confederate and the electric shocks were a sham; the confederate acted as if he was distressed. MILGRAM stated that deception was a vital element of the study or else the participants would have altered their natural behaviour and probably would have obeyed anyways. He dealt with this ethical issue by conducting a pilot study where he asked a group of students how many people would obey an unjust order given to them by an authoritative figure to inflict pain on another person. They estimated that only 3% would administer electric shocks up to 450 volts, when in fact 65% did. Therefore, it has been questioned whether the participants knew they were being deceived? Milgram claimed that he couldnt predict how the participants were going to behave in the actual study, so the deception was acceptable under his terms. Another way in which he deemed the deception acceptable was by stating that obedience is an integral part of society and people are always made to do some things that they really dont want to do. Therefore, his research study had received great amount of praise by providing an insight into obedience that can be applied to society and everyday life. Milgram also dealt with the ethical issue of deception by debriefing his participants after the study. They met up with the confederate, and then one year later, they were interviewed in a follow-up, and were sent the results of the experiment. On the other hand, Milgrams study had been greatly criticised as there was ethical disapproval regarding his findings, which showed that people would obey authority to administer electric shocks. This turned into a negative response whereby people attacked Milgrams procedures for causing psychological and physiological harm, because Milgram believed that most participants wouldnt give the 450-volt shock or suffer from any harm making the ethical issues acceptable by Milgrams standards. BAUMRIND accused Milgram of not respecting his participants because they showed signs of extreme anxiety (some o them even had full-blown seizures). DARLEY stated that this could cause long-term effects by bringing out sadistic qualities of peoples personalities. Milgram decided not to stop the study when the participants showed signs of distress, because he later stated that in a follow-up questionnaire 74% of them said that they learnt something of great importance by participating in the study. Therefore, he knew that they were stressed by going up to 450 volts, but he didnt think that any serious harm was caused because he knew that it was impossible for him to predict how much harm his participants would suffer by being deceived. CRITICS are divided in the subject of how useful the findings were in terms of the question of was the harm caused really worth it? For instance, MANDEL proposed that Milgrams study doesnt really show obedience at all and lacks mundane realism; the harm caused was unnecessary as the study didnt find what it aimed to.

Another psychological study that was unethical was Zimabardos prison simulation study. He looked at conformity to social roles due to situational factors. The guards wore uniform, reflective glasses and held a baton for threatening the prisoners but no active violence was permitted; the prisoners were stripped of their clothes and personal effects, they were made to wear potato sacks and a shower cap, and had a chain bed around their ankle. Unlike Milgrams study, ZIMBARDO stopped his study after 6 days because the participants became very seriously involved in their roles: prisoners showed signs of pathological syndrome, and guards showed the pathology of power. It was unethical because they came to psychological and physiological harm, especially the prisoners who were humiliated and wanted to withdraw themselves from the study, which was why it was stopped. This was not worth it in terms of the results gained, which showed that people do conform to social roles. This study has been criticised due to its unethical nature because it lacked fully informed consent about all aspects of the study; the participant didnt know that they would be arrested at their own homes, blindfolded, and were made disoriented. However, Zimbardo thought the nature of the study justified withholding this type of procedural detail. He stated that it was necessary to surprise the participants when they were arrested from their homes, but fully informed consent was gained from them concerning all other aspects of the study. Nevertheless, the deception involved in this study was minimal and Zimbardo ensured that all the participants were thoroughly debriefed afterwards, which dealt with this particular ethical issue of deception. His study can be criticised in the sense it lacks mundane realism because criminals are not arrested from their homes without warning on a daily basis, which means that the results dont reflect everyday life; perhaps participants only conformed to their social roles because they were obeying orders given by an authoritative figure, which shows obedience and not conformity. The participants also suffered from psychological and physiological harm, especially the prisoners who experienced high levels of anxiety and shame. However, Zimbardo found no long-lasting effects of this in follow-up interviews, which means that this ethical issue was acceptable by his terms. Nevertheless, he shouldnt have taken on the role of prison-superintendent because he was the chief researcher which means that he played conflicting roles and could have lose sight of the ethical considerations involved in this study making it even more unethical. A third psychology study that was unethical was by Curtis who investigated the life of a girl called Genie. She was locked in an attic by her father for the first 13 years of her life, because she suffered from deprivation dwarfism and he thought she was retarded. Whilst recovering, she was exploited by the media, and had been exposed to too much testing and observation to further psychologists understanding of isolation development. Therefore, she never had a stable base in her life, which was very unethical as she lived under the public eye, and constantly suffered from the following ethical issues: invasion of privacy, lack of consent, psychological harm and possible physiological harm too.