Case Study: Darley And Latan�

However, in the Burger experiment, the maximum shock level available for use was 150 vaults, unlike the 450 volts available for use in the Milgram obedience experiment. Also, all of the participants in the Burger study were carefully screened, with hopes of weaning out persons who were familiar with Mailgram’s research or likely to experience adverse effects after participating in Burger’s study. After the screening process, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Participants in the base condition were escorted to the lab and introduced to the experimenter and confederate. Similar to the Milgram study, the experimenter and confederate followed a script. When the participant seemed uneasy and began to resist, the experimenter insisted on the participant’s cooperation. The script for the confederate included shrieks of pain and verbal phrases of distress. The experiment ended when the participant either refused to go on with the experiment or after the participant administered the 150-volt shock (Burger, 2009). The results showed that more than half of the participants in the base condition attempted to go on with the experiment after the 150-volt shock, thus supporting the

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.

The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on

However, when they conducted their experiments they did not breach any ethical guidelines since they did not exist (Matta, 2014). Hence, to protect the welfare, rights, dignity, and mental health of the participants, strict ethical guidelines were introduced in psychological experiments which have positively influenced the field of psychology. Also, due to ethical frameworks, people are viewed as ‘participants’ of a study instead of ‘subjects’ in an experiment. They also make psychological experiments more reputable, leading to an increase in the willingness of participation by people as their safety is ensured. The increased willingness of participation is beneficial in order to discover more about human behaviour, the effectiveness of treatment, mechanisms of a psychiatric disorder etc.

In accordance to the ethical guidelines written by The British Education Research Association (BERA, 2011), the names of the children and school, where used, have been changed in order to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. KU 1.2/KU 1.5

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

Looking at the history of human research experiments necessitates investigation into the background; why is it not sufficient to simply to undertake an experiment merely to broaden scientific study and understanding? Are not the psychologists and scientists ethical and professional? The answer is quite simply, not always. While many psychologists may have started their experiments with the best of intentions, there were a number that merely seized opportunities that were in their grasp. Hence, there came the need for the Belmont Report and the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Code of Ethics in direct response to testing on human subjects.

Milgram states, “two people come to a psychology laboratory to take part in a study of memory and learning” (WRAC 215). Because the participants were completely unaware of the true intentions of the experiment, Milgram believed they would act in a controlled way to generate proper results. This meant he could not ask for true consent for the experiment without jeopardizing the data. The importance of consent to Milgram was the lack there of it. While the test proceeded, more and more of the teachers started to break down from the stress. To compensate, Milgram explains that after the test was either finished or terminated, an effort was made to correct the psychological damage. Baumrind disagrees, having completely different view on the issue of consent. She argues that it is unfair to the participant to not receive their consent for an experiment that could be potentially traumatizing. Baumrind states that, “To guarantee that an especially sensitive subject leaves a stressful experimental experience in the proper state sometimes requires special clinical training” (WRAC 227). She continues by exclaiming that, “the subject has the right to expect that the psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively” (WRAC 227). Baumrind does not believe Milgram was in any position to successful and safely completely the experiment because he made no

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

All children are different in their unique way. The goal of this assignment was to observe different children in an uninterrupted environment. Although all the children observed were the same age, they all acted differently during their observation. The differences in the way we react to different situations are what make us human. These differences can be explained through the theories that different psychologist have developed over the years. Some children react better to things like praise from a teacher or being able to be creative in the activities that they are participating in.

The informed consent were not obtained for the participants to engage in the experiment at their own free will, instead they were deceived and made to belief that they were benefitting, such experiment which has become widely known

Before we began, I explained to learners that I was introducing them to a sensitive topic and that it was necessary to be respectful and use appropriate language when giving an opinion. Previous to that, parents had been given letters informing them of the project contents and asking their permission for their child to be part of

The main ethical issue with this experiment was the use of deception as the participants did not know the truth behind this study. Participants believe that they were shocking the learners and they were under severe stress due to this is possible that they had suffered psychological injuries. The participants have the right to withdraw from the study if they wanted; however, this was not made clear to them. Also, participants did not receive enough information about the study.

They depict an experiment where a woman leaves the room and goes into an area where she can not be seen, but she can be heard. She then feigns an injury to provoke a response. [The experiments results were twenty-six individuals waited alone reacted to an accident seventy percent of the time.] Then they reenacted the same accident with individuals in a group, and only twenty-percent offered the person in distress their assistance (Darley and Latane 770). After the experiment, the individuals that did not respond said that they did not want to embarrass her because they thought that it was just a minor injury.

One might think that this experiment will stimulate the new research in the area of human obedience, but this did not occur. Despite the difficulties and the courage of Burger to conduct a partial replication of the original study, it did not produce any different outcomes and did not spark any new ideas in psychology (Burger, 2009). Instead, the researcher had to deal with an enormous amount of different commentaries and controversy. My main rationale for disapproving the Burger’s study is ethical characteristics of the Milgram paradigm. More specifically, now we have the Ethical Rules of the APA, which tell us that researchers should honor rights of participants to privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw the experiment. However, Milgram’s paradigm clearly challenges these fundamental rights and creates even more ethical dilemmas. Another rationale that I can include is the infliction of increasing pain on an unwilling participant, a characteristic that is unacceptable in modern psychological studies. Therefore, I would disapprove such experiment, because of ethical non-compliance and little contribution to the field. As for me, I view following ethical practices in my dissertation project work as a crucial element for success. It will allow me to produce reliable, meaningful and relevant scholarly data that would not be a subject to ethical