Introduction
This article is a scientific accompaniment, description, and discussion of the well-known Milgram Experiment. This classic study was conducted in the 1960s and focused on examining the specifics of obedience to authority and the associated behavioral changes (Milgram, 1963). The process itself concentrated on gaining an understanding of the reactions of observed individuals to orders to perform actions contrary to their moral values. Although the study provided valuable information in general, it raised serious ethical issues, especially in terms of evaluation according to contemporary standards.
Ethical Issues in the Milgram Experiment
Lack of Informed Consent
While there were many irregularities in the work conducted, two points can be highlighted that are the most serious and should be avoided in the future: lack of fully informed consent and causing psychological harm and distress to participants. The first was because each of the experiment participants was not properly informed of the true nature and details of the flow of the study (Milgram, 1963). A significant problem with this is that instead of this now mandatory process, they were misled, exacerbating such misconduct (Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, 2023). The data provided stated that people were participating in a learning experiment, while the potential suffering they could cause the student was not disclosed. Such a violation is likewise understood as damaging the ethical principle of autonomy (McBurney & White, 2012). This notion implies that participants are not able to make fully informed decisions about their actions and reflections.
Violation of Right for Psychological Safety
The second issue, as mentioned, was the psychological detriment to all participants. Such a study exposed each of them to significant levels of stress because they believed they were actually hurting another person, even though they were actually a hired actor (Milgram, 1963). As described in the study itself, the consequences of this were quite severe because, at first, many tried to resist the teacher’s authority and then changed their behavior. Thus, severe distress manifested itself in the format of anxiety, worry, anger, other emotional reactions, or even trauma. Accordingly, the right to be protected and free from harm, as well as the principle of minimizing stress, were violated (Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, 2023). Participants were subjected to unjustified and unfair stress without their consent, which, according to current relevant ethical standards, requires action.
Suggested Changes
To begin with, obtaining informed consent with notification of all details is mandatory and of paramount importance. The fact that some studies will be meaningless or received data will demonstrate low relevance and credibility does not justify the deception and exploitation of participants. Each should be given full and transparent information about the purpose of the study, potential risks, details of procedures, and the right to end and leave the experiment at any time (McBurney & White, 2012). Concealment should be minimized or avoided altogether, and those who wish to participate should be interviewed to confirm their understanding.
Psychological harm, on the other hand, is completely contrary to the principles of ethical research. Accordingly, when such an experiment is repeated, scientists should incorporate rigorous debriefing approaches to ensure the health and well-being of participants after completion. In addition, the scenario should be changed to a less disturbing and traumatizing one, such as demonstrating alternative ways of testing obedience, provided that there is no undue mental pressure on the recipient.
Benefits and Costs
The benefits of Milgram’s experiment may be considered a matter of debate that continues to this day. Overall, the study provided valuable data on the dynamics of human behavior, especially within the powerful influence of power and authority on the actions of those who feel themselves subordinate or junior in rank. Thus, insights into the mere essence of obedience, self-centeredness, conformity, and the manifestation of the dark side of human character became part of the overall observational findings. Moreover, the study could be further used to expand various fields of knowledge in sociology, psychology, and ethics.
On the other hand, the costs of this scandalous study are notably high, and the harm done to the psyche of the participants demonstrates violations of a number of ethical standards. The experiences encountered were exceptionally serious for most of those who consented and could provoke deformation of emotional well-being or neuralgic consequences. It is, therefore, worth noting that the benefits of the experiment did not outweigh its costs.
Moreover, ethical violations are completely unacceptable today, and despite the lack of specific restrictions at the time of the study, they were relatively immoral even then. There are various alternative ways to study power, its effects on behavior, and levels of obedience without introducing so much suffering into the lives of the participants. Researchers should be more careful to check all parties’ compliance with the experiment being conducted and to make sure that all conditions are communicated and understood equally.
Conclusion
Thus, the work described in this article is indeed classic behavioral research, providing abundant information on its topic but violating several ethical and human rights principles. Among these problems are the lack of information for full consent and the psychological harm caused. To fully comply with today’s norms, priority should be given to transparency, correctness, and feasibility of all processes during the experiment to minimize possible harm and to deny the exchange of necessary data for the subjects’ health.
References
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. (2023). APA. Web.
McBurney, D., & White, T. (2012). Research Methods. Wadsworth Publishing.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. Web.