Introduction
Developments in psychology are often impossible without experiments that require the presence of research participants. These volunteers usually perform tasks and assignments determined by a researcher or answer a set of initially prepared questions. The potential problem here is the possibility that the methods used in a study can cause negative experiences and possible harm to participants. In contrast, another side of the debate argues that if the harmless deception of participants can contribute to scientific knowledge, the researcher must use it. Although the discussion of ethical implications of studies in psychology is acute even today, the more vivid and illustrative examples one can find in the psychological research of previous years. One of the studies from this range, which can be analyzed, is Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authorities. Although studies with the deception of participants can bring fruitful results for the academic community, it is crucial to draw the line of border between ethically acceptable and unacceptable studies.
Milgram experiment
Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authorities was conducted in the early 1960s, and its results were published in the article “Behavioral study of obedience” in 1963. In this study, there were two participants: one volunteer who performed the role of teacher, and one victim (learner), who was an accomplice of Milgram (Milgram, 1963, p. 373). The teacher needed to organize a “paired-associate learning task,” the main idea of which is to train the memory of the learner and punish the learner for every mistake through the shock generator (Milgram, 1963, p. 373). The whole procedure was a full deception of the volunteer because the accomplice did not experience any harm, artificially showed suffering, and deliberately made mistakes in questions (Milgram, 1963). What is also crucial is that the experimenter presented false information about the aims of the research, claiming that “we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning” (Milgram, 1963, p. 373). The research aim was to create an artificial curtain under the real reasons for the experiment. Therefore, the volunteers did not know the actual reason why they performed such violent actions.
The result of the study can shock the readers with the scale to which participants agreed to perform violent actions. The shock generator had different kinds of verbal designations, from the “slight shock” to the maximum level of “danger: severe shock” (Milgram, 1963, p. 376). The statistics showed that only 5 participants stopped before the level of “extreme intensity shock,” while 26 participants (from 40 overall) did not even stop at the last, most dangerous stage (Milgram, 1963, p. 376). Thus, the experiment showed that participants demonstrated a high level of obedience to the experimenter’s calls for action. However, the last stages of the most harm to learners were the most nervous and morally hard steps for the teachers (Milgram, 1963). Such a paradox showed the conflict of two desires not to harm people and to obey the ruler.
Ethical Issues in Milgram’s Experiment
Milgram’s experiment is the standard experiment in almost all textbooks about the ethical guidelines in psychological and social research. It is commonly assumed that Milgram violated the ethical rules, so it is hard to assume that papers with such methods could be published in modern scientific journals. Firstly, this experiment could not be possible without the deception of participants (Silverman, 2017). If the volunteers had known about the aim of the research and all the tricks performed by learners, they would have definitely behaved in a different way. Secondly, the participants experienced severe psychological distress about the actions they performed (Silverman, 2017). For example, after the end of the experiment, the volunteers can face depression, insomnia, and painful regret about their behavior. In addition, the participants can feel that they were easily deceived and used for cynical goals, which may cause frustration in the scientific community.
Further Discussion
Milgram’s experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Tearoom Trade Study that was conducted in the 1960s and early 1970s posed reasonable questions about the boundaries of what is permitted in social and behavioral research. To understand the roots of such debates, it is necessary to move to the 20th-century debates about the utility and moral acceptability of deception. One of the major opponents of intentional deception is Diana Baumrind, the developmental psychologist. She claimed that “the use of intentional deception in the research setting is unethical, imprudent, and unwarranted scientifically” (Baumrind, 1985, p. 165). Considering the Milgram Experiment, he used deceit to get consent from the participants, which strongly contradicts all ethical guidelines because such consent was not informed (Baumrind, 1985, p. 166). In addition, Baumrind (1985, p. 168) indicates that “the costs [of deception] include encouraging students to lie in the interests of science and career advancement.” It is even more acute in modern science when there are tendencies to not trust science because of its alleged dirty motives and methods.
Finally, Baumrind’s article consists of a strong argument that can explain why the break of ethical principles damages the results of unethical scientific studies. The scientific community is considered to have special authority, which people have reasons to trust (Baumrind, 1985, p. 165). In other words, scientists still have the reputation and image of people of great moral qualities, especially among students of universities like Yale. It can explain why volunteers of the Milgram experiment continued to punish the victim while the experimenter encouraged them to do it. Therefore, it may be a sign that the study has issues with validity. For example, people did not follow the orders of Nicolae Ceaușescu during revolutionary events because personal dignity and belief in democracy were seen as more important than the power of the bloody dictator.
Moving beyond the experiment of Milgram, modern psychology starts to recognize the new aspects of ethical guidelines with a focus on the promotion of social justice and equity. Defining the goal of scientists in psychology as the achievement of “wellness” in society, social justice is an indispensable factor that must be addressed (Hailes et al., 2021). Systemic marginalization and internalized oppression resulted in the exclusion of some groups, so one of the major goals of the scientific community is to combat such discrepancies. For instance, in experiments, researchers need to increase cultural competencies and awareness about diversity.
Conclusion
To sum up, although Milgram’s experiment on obedience was conducted more than 50 years ago, its content and results are valuable for understanding the ethical issues that may occur in social and behavioral research. In general, Milgram’s experiment has ethical issues because of the deception, ignorance of possible moral harm, and the abuse of volunteers’ trust. These violations of ethical rules may cause issues with the validity of research results.
Reference List
Baumrind, D. (1985) ‘Research using intentional deception: ethical issues revisited’, American psychologist, 40(2), pp.165-174.
Hailes, H.P., Ceccolini, C.J., Gutowski, E. and Liang, B. (2021) ‘Ethical guidelines for social justice in psychology’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 52(1), pp. 1–11.
Milgram, S. (1963) ‘Behavioral study of obedience’, The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67(4), pp. 371-378.
Silverman, H. (2017) ‘Ethical issues in social and behavioral research’, in Silverman, H. (ed.) Research ethics in the Arab Region. Springer, pp. 117-131.