Milgram’s experiment did not do this as participants volunteered to take part in an experiment of learning and not obedience. Having not been told fully about the experiment the participants could not fully give their consent.
Misleading clients:
The BPS Ethical Principles (1993) state “Participants should never be deliberately misled without extremely strong scientific or medical justification. Even then there should be strict controls and the disinterested approval of independent advisors.”
The participants were told that they were given electric shocks to an old man who had heart problems, each time stronger than the last. The participants were actually giving shocks to one of Milgram’s advisors and the advisor was not actually receiving any electrical shock.
Debriefing was not appropriate:
When debriefing it involves informing those who have taken part in the test of the reasons for the research and ensuring that they leave the test in a similar state as they were before the test. This is particularly important when deception has taken place in the study and the procedure could have or cause long term effects.
Milgram debriefed all the participants (teachers) after the experiment, reassuring them that the learners (Milgram’s advisors) were unharmed and had not received any shocks. Milgram’s experiment should have briefed the participants before the experiment.
Protection of participants:
Participants should leave psychological studies in roughly the same condition in that which they arrived. This must be without suffering any physical or psychological trauma.
Milgram’s experiment has been criticised by many people as being unethical as it caused distress and pain to the participants. One of the participants taking part as a “Teacher” had a seizure and all of the rest of the learners may have suffered some psychological damage.
Right to withdraw
Any participant taking part within a psychological study should be informed of their right to withdraw at anytime from the test without justifying them selves.
Milgram did not allow the participants the right to withdraw from his experiment. Anyone wishing to withdraw from the experiment was told, “You have no other choice, and you must go on.” Milgram did not physically restrain any of the participants and they did have the right to withdraw, leaving at any time through the experiment if they really wanted to.
Although Milgram’s experiment would have broken these guidelines above, Milgram could have argued that his experiment was a good thing and his actions were justified, not breaking current B.P.S guideline, these were:
- The methodology
- Right to withdraw
- Debriefed and reassured after the experiment
- Protection of participants
The methodology:
Milgram can dispute that his methodology was not unethical as the results obtained were completely unexpected, almost 650 more people continued till the end (65%) where he predicted that only 1 in a thousand would finish the experiment (3%). The subject appeared uncomfortable with the obedience experiment, but Milgram concluded that “Momentary excitement is not the same as harm.”
Right to withdraw:
Anyone wishing to withdraw from the experiment was told, “You have no other choice, and you must go on.” The participants could have got up and left, they were never physically restrained, where as the “Learners” where physically restrained in a chair.
Debriefed and reassured after the experiment:
After the experiment had finished all of the participants were fully debriefed and reassured that no one had come to any harm within the experiment. They were shown that the “Learners” were entirely unharmed and had not received any electrical shocks throughout the experiment.
Book: Advanced psychology through diagrams
Author: Grabame Hill
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBS 0-19-917168-8
Page 109
Says that, “A follow up opinion survey conducted a year later found that 84% were glad to be in the experiment, 15% were neutral and only 1.3% were sorry or very sorry”
Protection of participants:
Book: Advanced psychology through diagrams
Author: Grabame Hill
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBS 0-19-917168-8
Page 27
In this book it defends Milgram in the why he protected his participants and that they did not come to any harm. It Says that, “A follow up opinion survey conducted a year later found that 84% were glad to be in the experiment, 15% were neutral and only 1.3% were sorry or very sorry to have been in the experiment. Around 80% of the respondents said they should be more experiments like Milgram’s conducted, and around 75% said they had learnt something of personal value from their experience. The subjects were examined one year later after the experiment by a psychiatrist who found no signs of harm.”
From the points that I have discussed about Milgram’s experiment you can say that it was both good and bad, as they both have different views but are right.
I feel that Milgram’s experiment was a good thing as it brought many new ideas and views to light.
Bibliography
Books:
Internet:
- I used for the code of conduct
- I used the links within the student Internet
