How Does Milgram Study Unethical

Ethical Guidelines that are Broken in Milgram's Study on Obedience The ethical guidelines suggest that debriefing the participants after the experiment is essential, which Milgram has done it thoroughly in order to reveal the aim and the true purpose of his study. Although he did not expect the out come of his research, but his ethics shows that the research is beneficial of understanding the welfare of World War II.

In the famous Belmont Report, several guidelines regarding informed consent, assessment of risk and benefits, and selection of subjects in addition to ethical practice and procedure in the area of human research are outlined. The Belmont Report attempts to summarize the basic ethical principles identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (Belmont Report, 1979). In particular I would like to discuss the standards for informed consent, assessment of risk and benefits, and selection of test subjects drawn out by the Belmont Report. These three areas of interest are said to be the applications of the general

3.) In your opinion, how should the data be used that is obtained from an unethical experiment and how can we prevent this from happening again?

This Stanford Experiment violated a few of the Five General Principles of Ethics. The young men were offered $15 a day to participate in a study that lasted for one to two weeks that “wanted to see what they psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard” (Zimbardo, 1999). One being “Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence” which

The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote

One of the guidelines for experiments is to give participants informed consent. This means that they should be fully aware of the nature of the experiment, and any risks which the participants may be subjected to. In Milgram’s study, he told participants that the experiment was to test human learning through a memory game, which was partially true. In reality, however, the focus point was on obedience to authority figures, and the extent to which people would inflict pain on another individual simply because they were told to. This immediately breaches one of the guidelines, as participants were deceived and the true nature of the experiment was hidden. An issue with deception, however, is it cannot be avoided in all cases in order to provide the results in which the experiment is looking for. For example, if Milgram told

The ethics of the study were however called into question (Banyard, 2012). One protestors among many was Diana Baumrind (Banyard, 2012). Baumrind (1964) argued whether the ‘welfare of the participants’ was considered Banyard (2012, p.79). Baumrind (1964) further criticised the experiment for the damage it could do the public’s perception of psychology (Banyard, 2012). In Milgram’s (1963) defence, he was not ignorant of the potential harm caused to participants, (Banyard, 2012). In fact, he was

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

Baumrind fairly claims the “laboratory is not the place” to conduct studies of obedience as the laboratory tends to increase the number of variables above what is desired (Baumrind 90). Science Magazine defends Baumrind’s claim by conducting an experiment directed toward answering the question of the reproducibility of previously conducted psychological experiments. The data collected shows a significant decrease in the strength of the data collected and the number of experiments deemed reproducible was much smaller than those which were reproducible (“Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science”). If the experiment’s results are correct, then Baumrind has fairly contested the integrity of the results of the experiment conducted by Milgram since his results have a stronger chance of not being reproduced in a laboratory than of being reproduced in a laboratory. Milgram adds credibility to his article by mentioning the population from which the subjects were drawn. Initially, Milgram enlists Yale undergraduates to volunteer for his study which led to results consistent with his study, but severely taints the credibility of his experiment. He then modifies his experiment and enlarges to volunteer population to include that of anyone living in the city (Milgram 80-81). His

The Milgram experiment is one of the most controversial psychology experiments of the past century. I was familiar with it prior to accessing the simulation on the elearning site from an ABC television Four Corners episode on the nature of torture. So when I participated in the simulation, I stopped administering the shock at the first sign of distress from the subject at thirty watts. If I was in the actual Milgram experiment I would like to believe that I would have behaved in the same way. Human nature dictates that we believe that only abnormal people are capable of sinister behavior. This belief that internal attributions cause certain behaviours assures us of some stability and security in our day-to-day lives and yet the

It is of utmost importance that ethical standards are overseen by a governing body like the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to hold researchers to ethical standards (Smith & Davis, 2010). The researchers of this study did have the approval process from the IRB. All the names were changed as a safeguard in this study as well on the final data collection so as not to violate anyone’s privacy. This could also be seen as another strength to the study giving no one a reason to lie.

The first ethical dilemma was that Milgram didn’t obtain informed consent from his participants. They did volunteer for his experiment, but they weren’t expecting to participate in an obedience study. Though they weren’t forced to take part, for this study especially, an informed consent should’ve been given. The ethical principles also state that the participant is allowed to withdraw from the experiment at any time, however in his study, Milgram did allow some to withdraw, but the right to withdraw was deluded. The experimenter effect – effect on the subject due to the influence of an experimenter- played a significance role on this concept.

The purpose of this paper is to explore ethical research breeches. What is ethical will be based off of the Belmont Report, which is the current ethical guideline for behavioral and medical researchers. The three basic ethical principles of the Belmont Report are: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Four experiments that have been conducted over the last century will be used as examples of studies that were later proved to be unethical and violate one or more of the pillars of the Belmont Report. The first study that will be discussed is Milgram’s Obedience Experiment.

Milgram research was to study conflict between obedience towards authorities and persons conscious. There were a teacher and a learner, teacher would do an electrical shock towards the learner when doing a mistake. Some of the teachers questioned the experiment because of how uncomfortable they were in the situation. Some of the scientists called this experiment unethical because of who is responsible to decide the issues also what right does the researcher have to expose the stress of the person.

Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.