Introduction
In the execution of analysis, ethics applies to the proper rules of procedure. Persons have a legal duty to avoid damage to study participants. The landmark studies in psychology mentioned the episode of “Redefining the reality: the intellectual Implications of Modern Science” will be considered unethical in modern days. Some of the popular psychology studies presented in the video have briefly harmed the participants; others been left with severe mental trauma to deal with for the rest of their lives, which is the result of highly unethical practices applied during the experiments.
Present-Day Perspective
Through the modern lens, most of the experiments in question would be considered highly unethical and even inadmissible. For instance, Asch’s research raises many unethical issues in the study (Banyard & Grayson, 2016). Asch ignored many ethical rules, including disappointment and damage prevention. Asch deceived his participants intentionally and said they were participating in a vision test rather than a conformity experiment.
While it is unethical to disappoint participants, Asch’s experiment demanded disappointment to achieve valid results (Banyard & Grayson, 2016). If participants knew the real goal of the study, they would have acted differently throughout the experiments. Moreover, Asch participants were not protected from psychological damage. When they disagreed with the majority, many participants reported feelings of stress. However, following the experiment, Asch interviewed all his participants to resolve this problem.
Ethics Concerns in Landmark Studies in Psychology
Various ethical concerns raised in the landmark studies in psychology mentioned in the video, “Redefining the reality: the intellectual Implications of Modern Science.” In reality, the participants figured that they would shock a real human and did not know the student was Milgram’s confederate (Gibson, 2019).
Additionally, the Milgram study shows the ethical issue of protecting participants. For instance, the respondents were exposed to the capacity of psychical damage in highly traumatic circumstances, in that all of the members were visibly upset. Signs of stress included crying, sweating, and hissing, nervous laughter, chewing lips, and scratching fingernails into hand palms. There were uncontrollable convulsions in three subjects, and many begged that the experiment should end.
In the episode of “Redefining the reality: the intellectual Implications of Modern Science,” Milgram’s study presents the ethical concern of the participant’s right to withdraw when needed. In Milgram’s analysis, the participant was not allowed to draw for review at their own will. Instead, the researcher gave four verbal prods, primarily deterrent the removal from the study. As a result, the individuals had no choice, and the participant had to go on no matter.
Milgram argued that because the analysis involved discipline, directives being necessary, hence they were justified. Milgram indicated that while partly difficult withdrawal was made, 35% of members could withdraw (Gibson, 2019). Nevertheless, Milgram made a complete debriefing and follow-up after the trial to ensure that the subjects did not suffer.
A Personal Perspective and More Research on Ethical Concern in Landmark Studies in Psychology
From a personal stance, the significance of consent represents the main concern to be addressed in the studies under analysis. There is a need for more research in the issue presented in landmark studies in psychology mentioned in the video. For instance, Philip Zimbardo’s prison research at Stanford reveals that the participants behaved as alive. Specifically, 90% of prisoners’ private conversations that the inspectors witnessed were held in jail. In turn, only 10% of the discussions took place outside the prison (Adorjan & Ricciardelli, 2016).
The guards discussed too seldom their personal information during their rest breaks. The security guards mostly served on time without any additional pay and even worked overtime. When the inmates were presented to a priest, they were not referred to by their first name but by their prison number. Some also asked him to get the support of a lawyer.
The research is also not accurate since the specimen contained male students from the United States. The conclusions of such a study cannot be included in prison sentences for females or other nations. America, for instance, is an individualistic culture, whereas the results can be distinct in collective countries; more research is therefore necessary.
References
Adorjan, M., & Ricciardelli, R. (Eds.). (2016). Engaging with ethics in international criminological research. Routledge.
Banyard, P., & Grayson, A. (2016). Introducing psychological research: Sixty studies that shape psychology. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Gibson, S. (2019). Arguing, obeying and defying: A rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge University Press.