The withholding of information from participants is considered, on the whole, to be unacceptable when conducting research on humans (The British Psychological Society). However, in some cases where the revealing of the objectives of the experiment will alter the behaviour of participants it is considered acceptable. When other methods have been explored, for example, the selection of a random sample that is exposed to the design of the experiment, including the deception, this sample would then comment on how they would feel and react to taking part in the experiment. Some deception can be more damaging than others. The reaction upon debriefing would be a good indicator to this, when conducting future research. Deception on an experiment of a trivial nature is considered to be less acceptable than on an experiment that contributes to sound knowledge and understanding.
Debriefing is an important part of any experiment involving humans because it is the first instance that informs participants that the experiment is over. Debriefing also allows the researcher to gain evaluative comments from participants that would highlight any unforeseen negatives. It also allows participants to gain a complete understanding of the experiment that they have taken part in. In this process it also means that the participants gain an educational experience, as opposed to being simply subjects to be studied, and humanises the participants. This area of ethical consideration means that participants can be informed that their behaviour is the norm and not abstract.
Milgram’s obedience to authority experiment set the participant’s moral beliefs against the demands of authority (Milgrim 1974). For this study, Milgram took out a newspaper ad that offered $4.50 for one hour of work, at Yale University, for a psychology experiment that sought to investigate memory and learning. Participants were told that the study would look at the relationship of punishment in learning, and that one person would be the teacher, and the other would be the learner (a confederate), and that these roles would be determined by a random drawing. The learner was then strapped into a chair, and electrodes are attached to their arm. It was explained to both the teacher and the learner that the electrodes were attached to an electric shock generator, and that shocks would serve as punishment for incorrect answers. The experimenter then states that the shocks will be painful, but that they will not cause any permanent tissue damage. The teacher and learner were then divided into separate rooms. The learners were in fact stooges and did not feel any pain. This was the main deception that was taking place.
This experiment was seen to be unethical because of the many deceptions that took place. The participants were lied to from the beginning, concerning the objectives of the experiment and the pain they were inflicting. Then the researchers used their position of authority to oppress the participants into an action that they would not have normally done. However, once again the social implications of this experiment were very important in understanding the real power that authority figures have over other people.
In Stanley Milgrim’s experiments studying authority participants either defied authority by not doing something they perceived as morally wrong or followed authority and did something morally wrong. Either way the participants did something ‘wrong’. It was important in the debriefing stage to inform the participants that their behaviour was not outside the norm. This stage of any experiment is also important because it aims to return the participants to the state that they were in before the experiment began. It is important to consider that debriefing does not justify unethical methods. A researcher cannot take the position that ‘all will be revealed’ in debriefing to justify undue exposure to mental or physical harm. Debriefing also illustrates that participants are considered colleagues and not objects to be studied. Milgrim’s experiments were not considered totally ethical to the individuals involved. The experiment that Milgrim carried out would have to be adapted to fit with ethical considerations if it was to be carried out today.
The protection of participants means that participants are not exposed to any risk outside of their normal lives. Godden and Bladdeley (cited in Pennington 2002 p.498) conducted an experiment that concerned itself with divers being able to remember instructions taught at depth better than when not at depth. This experiment could be considered dangerous but only to those outside of diving. The experiment did not expose the divers to any undue risk outside of their normal lives, the experiment was considered ethical.
Albert Bandura is most famous for the Bobo doll experiment (Bandura 1973). He carried out this experiment before guidelines were in place that set out ethical considerations to follow. In this experiment, he had children witness a model aggressively attacking a plastic clown called the Bobo doll. Children would watch a video where a model would aggressively hit a doll and " ‘...the model pummels it on the head with a mallet, hurls it down, sits on it and punches it on the nose repeatedly, kick it across the room, flings it in the air, and bombards it with balls...’(Bandura, 1973: p.72). After the video, the children were placed in a room with attractive toys, but they could not touch them. The children became angry and frustrated. Then the children were led to another room where there were identical toys used in the Bobo video. Bandura and many other researchers found that 88% of the children imitated the aggressive behaviour. Eight months later, 40% of the same children reproduce the violent behaviour observed in the Bobo doll experiment.
This experiment could be seen to not be ethical because it exposes the children to behaviour that they would not have necessarily observed in their normal lives. However the social responsibility that Bandura had to illustrate was the undeniable fact that young children not only observe but retain violent behaviour that they see.
Psychologists such as Milgrim have an ethical responsibility to society as a whole. It could be argued that he would not be fulfilling that responsibility if he did not carry out such research as he did. Elliot Aronson (1995) suggests that psychologists face a dilemma when this wider responsibility to society conflicts with the obligations to individuals. This issue is greater the more important the issue is to society. The more important the study and the more potential benefit the study has to society the more likely it is that the participants involved will experience discomfort.
It is apparent that as time has gone on ethical considerations have become more important to researchers. The considerations allow for research to gain in credibility and robustness when standing up to critics. The guidelines set out by The British Psychological Society have meant that researchers can easily gain access to the considerations that they need to adhere to in order to conduct ethical research. The importance that these guidelines have for research is evidenced in the protection of participants and the credibility of modern research. Without the ethics behind research it would be hard to gain participant consent for research to be carried out.
Word Count: 1563
Bibliography
Aronson, E (1995) The Social Animal, New York: W.H. Freeman
Bandura, A (1973) Influence of models’s reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses, Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 1, 589-595
Behavioural Study of Obedience [On line]
Accessed 29/04/2009
Available << http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/milgram.htm>>
The British Psychological Society [On line]
Accessed 29/04/2009
Availiable << 7E6C-F1938A65C242&ext=pdf>>
Cardwell, M (1996) Psychology for A-Level, London, Collins Educational
Milgrim, S (1974) Obedience to authority, New York, Harper
Pennington, D (2002) Introducing Psychology, London, Hodder & Stoughton
