Critically evaluate whether Milgrams research on obedience was ethical

It is true that due to the nature of the experiment, it would have been difficult to obtain informed consent from the participants without revealing that the switches were actually harmless and that the learner was an actor; therefore, they did not agree to what happened in the experiment. Although they volunteered to take part, the true purpose of the research was not revealed until after their participation. In the case of Milgram’s experiment, it clear that the research would have had no value as the obedience levels could not have been accurately recorded had the participants been aware of the specific details. Milgram argued that although no informed consent was obtained, 84% of the participants said they were glad or very glad to have taken part in the experiment and that 74% had learned something of personal importance (americanscientist.org) [3 Jan 2010].

Many of the participants seemed to develop a common misconception that they did not have the right to withdraw from the experiment even though it was explained at the beginning that they could do so at any time and that the monetary reward for participating would be theirs to keep. Many expressed the wish to withdraw on several occasions but reluctantly continued when told to do so by the authority figure, who said that they were required to proceed for the sake of the experiment. At no point were they physically restrained or threatened, but most carried on due to a few firm, persuasive words from the experimenter. The BPS guidelines however state that the participant should be reminded of their right to withdraw if it is a lengthy experiment, particularly if they seem distressed; therefore, this would also be an unethical point in modern times.

As informed consent was not obtained for the experiment, it follows that deception was also present in Milgram’s research methods. Although the ethical guidelines of today state that intentional deception of participants should be avoided whenever possible, it would quite clearly be impossible to conduct some psychological experiments without withholding information about the nature of the research. As in many areas of psychology, there will be situations where deception is more acceptable than others. If participants had been correctly informed of the true purpose of the experiment, it would have become more of a role-play scenario, which could lead to very different findings; therefore, the validity of the overall results would be compromised. There are different levels of deception that are more damaging than others and how uncomfortable or angry the participant appears when they are told about the deception are usually a good indication of how damaging it has been to them. The participants in Milgram’s experiment did not seem to express anger, although some were very uncomfortable with their actions; however, most were simply relieved to learn they had not actually been administering the shocks.

From the video footage and research material available, it would appear likely that many of the participants suffered psychological stress, which at times appeared to be of an unacceptable level. Several of them were visibly shaken by the “victims” pleas to stop and cries of pain and they repeatedly sought reassurance that they would not be held responsible for their actions. The participants showed signs of agitation and extreme discomfort at what they were being instructed to do, many of them trembling, stuttering and clearly sweating. Psychologist, Diane Baumrind who was one of Milgram’s critics, believed the level of distress caused to the participants was an unacceptable level (Hill G 2001). On this point Milgram argued that, he did not intend to cause distress and that he did not know what the outcome would be, in other words, he did not expect the participants to obey the experimenter. Milgram, however, performed different variations of the experiment over many years, therefore, after the first surprising results; he would have had a good indication of what the results would continue to be (Miller & Arthur 1986). It is true that Milgram may not have been able to predict the original findings; however, in the repeated experiments, he would have been aware of the potential for the participants to be distressed.

The debriefing process is an important part of psychological research or experiments, particularly when deception has taken place as it had in Milgram’s studies. The purpose of debriefing is to ensure participants are of the same emotional and physical state as when they embarked on the research. Milgram covered this area very well by providing the participants with a full explanation of the experiment and provided them with the information needed for their understanding of the role they had played and explained to them that their behaviour had been normal. Open-ended questions and psychometric measures were used to test that they had not been harmed in any way and the participants were reunited with the “victim” to show that he had not been harmed by their actions (holah.net/milgram study) [3 Jan 2010]. In fact, it appears that every effort was made to ensure the participants left in a sound, healthy state. Having said that, the British Psychological Society (BPS) says that ‘Debriefing does not provide justification for unethical aspects of any investigation.’

The BPS guidelines definition on undue risk to participants is based on risk encountered in their normal, everyday life; therefore, the risk to the participant during psychological research should not be greater than this. It has been argued by Baumrind that the participants had to live with what they had experienced, including their behaviour and actions during the experiment, which could have potentially caused long-term psychological damage (Hill G 2001). Milgram’s defence to this was that a debriefing was given after the experiment and that the participants visited a psychiatrist one year after, who found no lasting damage on their mental health. It has been recorded that many of the participants contacted Milgram to express thanks and felt that they had learned something important. Many expressed the opinion that psychologists should conduct more studies of this kind and Milgram also had repeated requests from the participants to assist with experiments or to join his staff; therefore, this seems to strengthen Milgram’s viewpoint that no long-term harm was caused by his experiment (americanscientist.org) [3 Jan 2010].

If Milgram’s research were to be judged by today’s standards with the current guidelines for psychological research, it would almost certainly be found to be unethical. The experiment breached several of the guidelines and although Milgram’s arguments for this were relevant and possibly valid at that time, there would be a strong likelihood that there would now be major issues around the ethical implications. Serious concerns would be raised around the distress caused, justifiably so as, in fact one of the participants had a violent seizure and also the possibility of long-term damage. Having said that, psychology does allow for a balance between ethics and the benefit of the experiment on society. The argument for this though would have to be very strong, as whether an experiment can be deemed ethical tends to be of utmost importance in today’s modern society.  

Milgram has argued that he was totally unaware of what the results would be, in fact he expected the participants not to obey the experimenter. Overall, the very way the experiment was carried out was unethical due to the major deceit involved and the potential for extreme long-term psychological damage to the participants. Even considering Milgram’s arguments, a psychological study such as this would not be allowed in most countries today due to the ethical issues.

Word Count: 1531