Deception
Milgram’s participants were grossly deceived, they believe that they actually were administrating electric shocks to a randomly chosen learner. In fact the learner was a confederate of Milgram’s, Mr.Wallace and he did not receive any electric shocks, he was not even in the room, what the participant believed to be the cries and protests of this man was merely a tape recording. Milgram used many cunning deceptions to make the experiment seem more realistic. He rigged the lot drawing of teacher and learner so it was always Mr. Wallace who was elected the learner, he gave the teacher a test shock so they could understand what the learner was going through, he also led the participant to believe that the learner had a mild heart condition. In group situations, he used actors to see if the participants would be influenced. He patently lied to them in using the single blind method; they believed they were assisting research to see if the process of learning was alleviated through punishment. Milgram’s justification of this fraudulence was that it was necessary for the experiment to appear realistic, had the participants known the truth or discerned it the results would have lost their validity. (Demand characteristics etc.)
Debriefing and Withdrawal
During the experiment when the participant became concerned for the learner’s welfare and asked to withdraw, they were strongly discouraged from doing so, Milgram used an authoritive, commanding tone and used similar phrases for each participant, for example,” It is absolutely essential that you carry on.” After the experiment the participants were reacquainted with the learner and told the true nature of the experiment, humiliating them and subsequently causing them to analyse their personal character, especially if they had gone all the way to 450V they might consider themselves to be immoral and callous or perhaps too submissive. Personally I would be quite angered to have been subjected to such character-damaging material unknowingly. The debriefing came too late, it should have been before the experiment but it was merely a consequence of the deception. Milgram argued that had the participants been readily able to withdraw nothing would have been learnt about defiance or obedience to authority and of course they could not know beforehand for previously stated reasons.
Protection of Participants
Of all the participants, 86% said afterwards that they were happy to have been part of the experiment, however, what about the other 14% among these presumably were the three of forty participants who suffered seizures owing to their role in the experiment. After the participants were reunited with the learner and told the truth this would presumably be deeply humiliating. The nature of the experiment is also potentially psychologically damaging; the participants were put in a very stressful and disturbing situation, in which they believed themselves to be the perpetrator of pain to others. It also scrutinized the individual’s morals and personality. All of the participants also received an electrical shock for no other reason than to make the experiment seem more realistic. There was absolutely no way of telling how certain individuals may react or be affected by their participation in the experiment. In Milgram’s defence, he did offer counselling after the experiment was conducted and also contacted each of the participants a year later to ensure they were okay. He also sought the opinions, beforehand of forty other psychiatrists. Of the participants, 86% did say that they were happy with their involvement in the experiment.
In my opinion Milgram’s studies were unethical, the participants should not have unknowingly been subjected to them. Although this was necessary owing to the nature of the experiment surely the hypothesis could have been tested using a different method or at least one which did not question individuals’ basic humanity. The end result, while conclusive seemed to have little real purpose or benefit.
