A Code Of Ethics Limits The Development Of Psychological Theory Essay

There are many research studies conducted in the past that would not be considered ethical today. This essay will review two research methods, whilst taking into account the ethical standards of modern psychology. The focus of this essay will be; ‘Landis’ Facial Expressions Experiment 1924’ carried out by Carney Landis and ‘’Milgram’s Obedience Experiment’ carried out by Stanley Milgram. Both experiments were carried out under immoral circumstances and perhaps should never have been allowed to take place. Nowadays, neither would be considered acceptable.

In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram reports from his studies of how far an individual can go in obedience to instructions and he pointed out that individuals can go as far as causing serious harm to the other people. Basically, the experiments are meant to test the choice that an individual would make when faced with the conflict of choosing between obedience to authority and obedience to one’s conscience. From the tests, it was found out that a number of people would go against their own conscience of choosing between what is wrong and what is right so as to please the individual in authority (Milgram 317). However, the experiments conducted by Milgram caused a wide range of controversy for instance; according to Diana Baumrind, the experiments were immoral. Baumrind notes in ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that Milgram did not only entrap his subjects, but he also potentially caused harm to his subjects (Baumrind 329). Based on the arguments that have been presented by the two authors, it is apparent that the two authors are concerned with real life situations, authority and ethics but the difference is that they both view these perspectives from different points of view as indicated by their writings. By and large, they also tend to show the importance or the insignificance of the experiments.

In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.

To ensure that a researcher’s enthusiasm for knowledge and understanding doesn’t let them get carried away, clear guidelines for ethical behaviour in research, a Code of Ethics, have been established by governments, institutions and various professional societies such as the American Psychological Association(APA), the British Psychological Society (BPS) and the Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI).

Stanley Milgram’s obedience study is known as the most famous study ever conducted. Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment that focused on the conflict between personal conscience and compliance to command. This experiment was conducted in 1961, a year following the court case of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram formulated the study to answer the question “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974). The investigation was to see whether Germans were specially obedient, under the circumstances, to dominant figures. This was a frequently said explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.

Each of the two experiments carried out by Milgram and Zimbardo had questionable ethics in their procedure. Ethics is defined as “Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). In psychology, ethics are moral guidelines when conducting social experiments such as these, so that the dignity of each participant is respected and preserved. This piece of work will evaluate the perceived ethics in Milgram’s experiment of human obedience to authority figures, and Zimbardo’s experiment of conformity to roles, and also provide an overall conclusion on whether or not these studies were ethical.

According to Bailey and Burch (2011), they had given nine core ethical principles for psychologists which was based on the book Ethical in Psychology (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 1998). Those core principles are also can be used in applied behaviour analysis field. The nine core principles are including: 1) Do no harm 2) Respecting autonomy 3) Benefiting others 4) Being Just 5) Being Truthful 6) According Dignity 7) Treating others with caring and compassion 8) Pursuit of excellence 9) Accepting responsibility. Behaviour analysts should follow those basic principles.

In her article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”, psychologist Diana Baumrind criticizes Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority, stating that not only were Milgram’s experiments unethical but so was the scientist himself, claiming that he did not take appropriate measures to properly ensure his subject’s wellbeing post-experiment and therefore, experiments such as these should not be repeated. Baumrind does address an important point in her review and that is the responsibility of psychologists to ensure that their subjects are treated fairly and ethically but this is overshadowed by the fact that Baumrind’s argument is one rooted in pathos with little evidence to support her claims while being

In today’s psychology profession, a therapist and even the client can cross many boundaries if immediate boundaries are not put into place during the initial visit. Some boundaries that are crossed are not a problem at first and then the problem progresses. Leonard L. Glass called these, “the gray areas of boundary crossing and violation” (429). However, there is further description, “Boundary issues mostly refer to the therapist's self-disclosure, touch, an exchange of gifts, bartering and fees, length and location of sessions and contact outside the office” (Guthiel & Gabbard). This statement by Thomas G. Gutheil, M.D. & Glen O. Gabbard, M.D explains the meaning of boundary

The APA ethical guidelines help to ensure that all psychological research maintains the integrity that it does not do harm or conflicts with the majority of the human populations moral ethical codes. However, in some situations the APA ethical guidelines must be viewed as just that: guidelines. If a study has the potential to benefit humanity as a whole and does not result in the permanent or irreparable harm to a human being then some guidelines must be permitted to be stretched or even broken in the interest of human advancement and scientific progression. After all the goal and responsibility of a psychologist is to enhance our understanding of human behavior as well as to find ways to use this information to better society and humanity

Psychological research has been growing and developing new ways of studying human behavior, collecting knowledge and expanding our understanding of our nature. For instance, studies involving human subjects presented risks for violation of ethical research guidelines, by pushing the limits of human experience (Kim, 2012). Throughout history, there have been numerous studies that elevated this concern, such as the Milgram Experiment of 1963. One of the major ethical raised was that it lacked informed consent from the participants and eventually raised the issue of protecting human subjects. This paper examines the ethical compliance in psychological research and emphasizes the importance of ethics and professionalism by analyzing different

The Nuremberg Doctors Trial of 1946 is the preeminent case recognizing the importance of medical ethics and human rights specifically about human research subjects. The defendants in the trials include Nazi leadership, physicians, and investigators prosecuted for conducting unethical and inhumane medical experiments on civilians and prisoners of war resulting in extreme pain, suffering, permanent injury and often death. The Nuremberg Code, borne of these trials, establishes ethical guidelines for human experimentation to ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Herein, this writer will first identify and discuss ethical dilemmas presented in the Nuremberg case followed by three

Stanley Milgram, a famous social psychologist, and student of Solomon Asch, conducted a controversial experiment in 1961, investigating obedience to authority (1974). The experiment was held to see if a subject would do something an authority figure tells them, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs and morals. He even once said, "The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act (Cherry).” This essay will go over what Milgram’s intent was in this experiment and what it really did for society.

Of the five general ethical principles of psychology, I believe the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence are the most vital to maintaining ethical practices. Yet when it comes to psychology taking a role in “enhanced interrogation” in such settings as Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay, it would seem that beneficence and nonmaleficence are conveniently forgotten. The first principle of the APA code of ethics states “in their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally” (American Psychology Association, 2003, principle A). Additionally, the APA posted their position on ethics and interrogations on their website, starting that their position is "clear and unequivocal" and that "any direct or indirect participation in any act of torture or other forms of cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment or punishment by psychologists is strictly prohibited. There are no exceptions” (APA, 2015). “Enhanced interrogation” is by definition just a

In this case, the psychologist is presented with several ethical issues which could cause harm to the client. The first ethical issue that arose in this case is the potential for a role conflict. The psychologist and Mr. Hartwig had contact prior to the development of a therapeutic relationship when the psychologist bought a car from Mr. Hartwig. It may not be enough that the brief, informal relationship ended. The psychologist must assess the dimensions of the previous relationship from the viewpoint of the client as well as his/her own personal feelings (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2008). For example, the client could feel that he gave the psychologist a good deal and that the psychologist was indebted to him. This could leave the