One of the ethical elements of taking part in psychological research is the informed consent of the participants. To comply with ethics when carrying out psychological research the investigator should inform all participants of the objectives of the investigation. In Milgrams research the experimenter went through exactly what would happen step by step and informed of all aspects of the research or intervention that might reasonably be expected to influence the willingness to participate. The participant after being talked through the experiment and in particular about the fact electric shocks would be administered did consent to take part. Although this can be argued that the participants did not actually know the true nature of the research. This needs to be taken into account when answering if the experiment was ethical as they have consented. However would the participants, if they knew that obedience is what they would be measured on still have consented? The results would have been different and more participants would have withdrawn sooner potentially.
The research received much critism most relating to the potential harm that might have been done to the participants. The participant, who acted as the teacher, was himself given a small electric shock and informed at the beginning that he would have to continue with the experiment no matter what. The participants on hearing the distress of the student once the electric shocks had been administered, were supposedly more intense, expressed concern and were unsure whether to go on. However most did still carry on again this could be argued that they had free choice in which to request to withdraw. The experimenter did not force the participants to give the electric shocks although they were always encouraged to carry on with the experiment. However a small number of the participants did refuse to continue further with the experiment. While others went on to comply after prompting from the investigator to continue, the experimenter makes it very difficult for the teacher to halt the experiment using lines such as ‘the experiment requires that you continue’. In this case, do the experimenters, who to the teacher pose in a position of authority, coerce them into continuing rather than force them? This can be answered by looking at the verbal prompts which can be seen as a means of persuasion. The teacher may have placed their trust in the person who holds the position of authority, and may also think they have a greater knowledge in the field. The participants did not have learning difficulties therefore no advantage had been taken. The participants would know the difference between wrong and right. This shows that although the participant questioned the experiment or stated that they did not want to continue further they were told by the experimenter to continue hence proving the theory on obedience. Did the participants feel that they had a right to withdraw or did they also feel an obligation to continue? It can be argued the fact that the participant was paid a fee could lead them to feel that they had an obligation to finish the experiment. Also it needs to be taken into account that there are a number of outside pressure factors other than the experimenter that may have caused them to continue further than they would have done under different circumstances. Would refusing to continue ruin an expensive, important experiment in some of the participants view? This may be argued that for the participants of a lower social class and level of education may have felt that this was the case.
Within Milgrams research deception was present in a number of areas, which Milgram himself claimed was imperative for the research to enable him to gauge human reactions. Within research experiments sometimes deceptions are required in order to gain as much insight into human psyche as possible. One such deception within Milgrams research was that the learner was a confederate within the research and briefed to show distress at the 150 watt mark. This was also a major deception as the teacher believed his responses to the electric shocks were real. The fact that the experimenter was wearing a white overall gave the participants an authoritive figure. This was viewed as one of the contributory factors as to why the participants obeyed orders and may have in itself be seen as a deception. (Moxon. D. Et el 2003). Had the researcher chosen to wear more informal clothing, the outcome of the research may have been very different. To prove this point in later experiments that were replicated, orders were given by the experimenter to the participant over the phone. This showed obedience was reduced to 20.5%. (Hogg. M, Vaughan 2003). As there was no visual element this could be seen as the reason for a reduction in the level of obedience.
Once deception has taken place debriefing becomes an integral part to the ethics of the research. It was at this point that the participants were informed that the learner had come to no harm. Immediately after the experiment the teacher was reassured no electric shocks were administered and that the learner was an actor. For the majority of participants this would have helped their levels of distress and anxiety. In Milgram’s follow up procedures he found that 83.4% of the participants were glad to have taken part compared to the 1.3% who said they were ‘sorry’ or ‘very sorry’ for taking part. The minority may have felt the debriefing was inadequate for there specific needs. What would the effect be on the participants if they took part, and were sent home without any chance to talk through or evaluate their experience? (Cardwell 2003). This is a question that can not be answered but it can be said that Milgram, although his research came under scrutiny, would have not be allowed to do research of this kind again if he was not adhering to current ethical guidelines.
In conclusion Milgrams research was criticised as unethical by psychology experts such as Baumrind, Orne and Holland. However it was ground breaking and has been replicated by many. The research was conducted in 1963, it may be argued that this experiment would not be allowed to go ahead in our society today. Potentially due to the number contraventions against ethics on this basis, it can be concluded as being unethical. Baumrinds criticism of the research was valid and with her wealth of experience in the field, her criticisms were well publicised. Although we do acknowledge that the research by today standards was on some levels unethical, the findings of the research were a fascinating insight into human psyche. These findings may have altered dramatically had ethics been stringently upheld. This was a breakthrough in psychological research and findings have helped to understand human behaviour ever since.
Word Count – 1491
Bibliography
Baumrind.D (1971) ‘Principles of Ethical Conduct in the Treatment of Subjects’ American Psychologist Vol 26 (10) p887
Cardwell.M. Et el Psychology for AS-Level Third Edition (2003) HarperCollins London
Hogg. M, Vaughan.G Social Psychology Third Edition (2002) Pearson Education Limited, Gosport
Moxon. D. Et el (2003) Psychology AS Oxford Heineman Educational Publishers
(Assessed Jan 2010)
