Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment was conducted to further study the causes of genocidal activities of Nazis during World War II because Adolf Eichmann’s trial sparked many questions regarding whether the Nazis were merely following orders (McLeod). This experiment involved participants passing electric shocks to a stranger in another room whenever he incorrectly answered a question. Standard 8.02 from the Code of Conduct provided by the American Psychological Association required researchers to ensure that all participants were informed of the purpose and process of the study, and “their right… to withdraw from the research once participation has begun,” before the start of the study. However, participants were unaware of the true procedures of the experiment prior to it, as they were only told they would be tested on their memory (McLeod). This violated the first part of Standard 8.02. Moreover, the participants were encouraged and persuaded to continue even though many felt discomfort and wanted to stop (McLeod), violating the second part of the standard. What began as an attempt to answer questions regarding the ethics of Nazis led to a controversial study which was then subject to criticism about its unethical nature.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, researchers selected twenty-four students at Stanford University and randomly assigned them roles as either prisoners, participants who had to stay at the prison for the entirety of the study, or guards, who returned home after each shift (Cherry). The guards were placed in positions of power so that the researchers could study the influence of situational factors on behavior. However, instead of continuing for two weeks as originally planned, the experiment was cut short after six days due to the clear psychological harm that the participants were experiencing (Cherry). Although there were no rules to how participants interacted, the guards took on their perceived roles and became hostile towards the prisoners, leading to the added stress and dehumanization of prisoners (Cherry). Under Standard 3.04 from the American Psychological Association, researchers must take proper steps to avoid or minimize pain inflicted on their participants. However, researchers in the Stanford Prison experiment failed to protect their participants and caused psychological harm through “cruel, inhuman, or degrading behavior” instead, violating Standard 3.04 (American Psychological Association). Therefore, the study became a well-known example of unethical research.
In the Little Albert experiment, a baby was conditioned to fear furry white objects. He was shown several items both before and after the conditioning, and his response was significantly altered by the experiment. Conditioning him to fear certain types of objects involved producing a loud noise whenever he was shown one of these items (Crawford). Even after they stopped banging the metal pipe while showing the object, Little Albert would still cry and try to escape (Crawford). Through their experiment, researchers Watson and Rayner were able to demonstrate classical conditioning, with the loud noise as the unconditioned stimulus, the rat as the conditioned stimulus, and fear as the conditioned response. However, Watson’s discovery was tainted by a major issue with the ethics involving this experiment; there was a high risk that the fear John Watson conditioned in the child would be carried on into later stages of his life and be a setback for him (Crawford). Much like in the Stanford Prison experiment, the researchers in the Little Albert study failed to protect the child from psychological trauma and distress. Furthermore, in Standard 8.08 of the Code of Conduct, it is stated that researchers must “take reasonable steps to minimize” any harm caused to a participant once they are aware of the negative impact on him or her (American Psychological Association). For these reasons, this experiment was categorized as unethical research as well.
Bibliography
- American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
- Cherry, K. (2018, November 19). The Stanford Prison Experiment Is Still Infamous Decades Later. Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stanford-prison-experiment-2794995
- Crawford, C. (2015). Little Albert: Ethics and Pragmatics. IU South Bend Undergraduate Research Journal, 15, 211.
- McLeod, S. (2017, February 05). The Milgram Experiment. Retrieved January 30, 2019, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
