These ethical guidelines are very important in Social Psychology and Developmental Psychology for the participants taking part in the research as they ensure that the psychological & physical dignity, well-being and health and safety are preserved. I believe that if the participants have confidence and a mutual respect for their researcher the results will be significantly improved. They best way to establish this is for the researcher to put him or herself into the participant’s shoes and consider the implications of the research. Age, gender, social background should all go into consideration. Also in order to conduct the research ethically the researcher must obtain an informed consent from all individuals taking part in the experiment. This will mean that the individual can make an informed decision about taking part in the study, and is given the opportunity to withdraw from the experiment, should they choose, without penalty. However when conducting research with children informed consent must be obtained from either a parent or guardian as the child is not able to make a decision on how they feel about the research. Even if the child can reasonably be expected to understand fully what he/she is agreeing to, it is important to make sure that the method and any possible consequences must be detailed so that an informed choice can be made by either the parent or guardian. Also any child that is reluctant or does not want to take part, must not be tested or observed as it posses a potential risk to the child’s psychological well being.
An example in developmental Psychology research was in Watson and Rayners research “Little Albert”. Watson and Rayner conditioned an 8 month old child to fear a distinctive stimulus which normally would not be feared by a child. The stimulus was a white rat, when it appeared a loud noise was produced behind Albert’s back from striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer whenever he touched it. In the preliminary experimentation Albert showed no fear of the rat, it was only when the noise was associated with the rat that Albert began to show signs of fear. This experiment was unethical for a number of reasons. The first was that Albert’s mother was not aware and did not give any consent for the research to take place. The second was it is considered unethical to evoke a response of fear in a laboratory unless the participant has given informed consent. Also after the experimentation had taken place Albert's fear was not extinguished because he moved away before desensitization could take place. It is presumed that, although he still must have had fear conditioned to many various stimuli, he would likely have been desensitized by his natural environments later in life. Today’s ethical guidelines would never permit this study to be replicated the same way.
Often when conducting certain research there are elements which the subjects are not informed or told about. Where participants are mislead to about what they believe will happen to them. These studies would not achieve valid results due to demand characteristics if deception was not employed, so a cost-benefit analysis of the gain vs. discomfort of the participant must be considered. The consequences of deception can be harmless, but can also be very stressful. A good example of this is Stanley Milgrams experiment’s where he set out to measure the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure that instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram advertised his research in a local paper offering $4.50 for one hours work at Yale University to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning.
The experimenter would take the participant and one of Milgrams confederate’s, who the participant believed was also another applicant into a room. Where they were told that the experiment would look into the role of punishment in learning and one of them would become the teacher and one would be the learner. Each time the learner would be the confederate. He would be seen by the teacher (participant) being strapped into a chair to prevent movement and an electrode being placed on his arm. The teacher’s job was to read a list of two word pairs and ask the learner to read them back. If the learner got the answer correct, then they moved on to the next word. If they answered incorrect, the teacher would shock the learner starting at 15 volts using a generator which had 30 switches at 15 volt increments, each time the learner got a question incorrect the voltage would increase and pre recorded screams and moans would be played back into the subjects room making the subject believe that they were inflicting pain on the learner. Some 65% of all of the teachers chastised the learners to a maximum of 450 volts. But no subject stopped before reaching 300 volts.
The problem with Milgrams experiment was that it broke many of today’s ethical guidelines. Participants were deceived into the exact nature of the study and made to believe that they were administering electric shocks on the learner. The subject also suffered severe stress and trauma and this was another reason why the study was heavily criticized for not taking adequate measures to protect the stress and emotional conflict they experienced. Also although the subjects wanted to stop due to the screaming and the thought that they were inflicting pain on an innocent person the subjects were urged by the experimenter to continue by simply saying “you must continue”. This made it difficult for the subjects to withdraw from the experiment.
After Milgrams experiments being so heavily criticized for breaking so many ethical guidelines. Milgram was forced to defend himself by explaining that the methodology was not unethical as the results obtained were completely unexpected and although the subjects appeared uncomfortable with their obedience, Milgram concluded “momentary excitement is not the same as harm”. He also explained that the subjects could have left the experiment at any time, they were not physically restrained. All of the subjects were debriefed and reassured. They were shown that the learner was completely unharmed. An independent follow up survey conducted a year later that found that 84% of the subjects were glad that they had taken part in Milgrams study, 15% were neutral and only 1.3% were sorry for being part of the experiment. Around 80% of the subjects also said that they there should be more experiments like Milgrams and they had learned something of a personal value from their experience.
References
Developmental Psychology, cited in As Level Psychology Revision Guide by Grahame Hill (2001) Published by Oxford University Press.
Developmental Psychology cited in Introductory Psychology by Tony Malim and Ann Birch (1198) Macmillan Press Ltd.
Milgram S, cited in Introducing Psychology Research by Philip Banyard and Andrew Grayson (2000) Published by Palgrave.
Milgram S, cited in OCR Psychology AS level by Fiona Lintern (2007)Published by Hodder & Stoughton
Milgram S, sourced from (22/09/2008).
Milgram S, sourced from (22/09/2008).
Milgram S, sourced from (23/09/2008)
Milgram S, sourced from (23/09/2008
