Deception implies that any consent given is not true, or informed consent, and this issue arises in a number of situations e.g. in studies of Bystander Apathy (e.g. Piliavin's Subway experiment) consent could not be gained at all, since any consent would have made the 'naturalistic observation' worthless. Also the issue of consent vs informed consent can be applied to areas where the participants themselves do not give consent, such as Watson and Rayner's study of phobias on Little Albert or in cases where people with serious brain injuries are studied. In both these cases, consent is given by relatives, but, especially in the case of Little Albert's parents, it is unlikely that everyone was fully understanding of the methods and consequences.
The right to WITHDRAWAL from the investigation at any time must also be considered. In Milgram's study the participants were firmly obliged to continue through what he called 'verbal prompting' while in Zimbardo's prison simulation, one of the key parts of the experiment was denying the right to withdraw. Both of these could perhaps be justified on scientific grounds. Zimbardo discontinued the experiment as soon as real stress began to tell to his participants and Milgram argued that prompting was designed to simulate the conditions inside some of the Death Camps during the Holocaust - i.e. it was meant to be forceful. Others have argued that any payment of money may lead to participants feeling they cannot withdraw, though the BPS guidelines state this should not be the case.
PROTECTION OF PARTICIPANTS is a key issue. Baumrind criticised Milgram for failing to protect his subjects from stress and discomfort (one even had a seizure), while Bandura's experiment using the Bobo doll was criticised for forming aggressive behaviour in children. As an answer to Baumrind's criticisms, Milgram demonstrated that extensive DEBRIEFING (a key ethical stipulation in itself), was undergone and a questionnaire and follow up survey suggested that the majority of his participants were pleased to have been part of the experiment and felt that more like it should be conducted. They were examined one year later by a psychiatrist, who found no long term negative effects.
Debriefing itself should inform those tested about the nature of the experiment, their results and implications/uses of the data, as well as ensuring strict CONFIDENTIALITY. They should leave the experiment in much the same emotional state as they came to it.
Confidentiality in research is based on the DATA PROTECTIONS ACT and all data should be kept anonymous until full consent is given. After debriefing, participants can request to have all their data destroyed. This issue has particular relevance to case studies, where often pseudonyms are used e.g. Anna O.
A further issue is that of Observational research - hidden studies often produce ecologically valid data but raise the issues of privacy. The BPS guidelines state that observations should not be undertaken where people would not normally expect to be observed (e.g. private houses, toilets etc) , but this is ambiguous. While walking down a street we would expect to be seen, we would not expect to be specifically observed. Using Participant Observation as a technique has been argued by some as a grave misuse of trust, since it involves deception on a grand scale.
The final issue to be considered is that of prediction. Milgram and Zimbardo claimed they did not predict the outcomes of their research, but should they be required to? Milgram continued to do variations of his experiments over a number of years and so could hardly claim not to have had specific hypotheses in mind. Likewise, one of the chief reasons behind Zimbardo's research was the damaging and alienating effects of Deindividuation, and the fact that it was partially funded by the US Navy makes it seem that at least some of the effects could have been predicted.
On the other hand, others have argued that it is precisely because of these adverse effects that the studies are valid, that only studies that cause anxiety or discomfort are truly useful contributions to human knowledge. The end justifies the means, seems to be the theme here.
905 words
