The Stanford Prison Experiment And The Milgram Experiment

Have you or anyone around you ever been involved in an experiment that some would call unwanted or unethical? Perhaps maybe even it happening to young children, It may surprise you how often unethical experimenting has been documented throughout the nation no less worldwide, and no less to very young children. This has been happening for years throughout history and still even today. However, this is a very highly debated topic as what someone would constitute a certain experiment unethical, others may count it as perfectly normal. Whether it is the case of Dr. Lauretta Bender, or the ever so famous case of the University of Iowa Speech therapy experiment, you are sure to find various amount of cases of unethical

The code of ethics is very important through-out all aspects of psychology. Without ethical guidelines psychology would be completely different from what we know it to be. These guidelines protect the rights of all participants, so without guidelines participants would have no rights or protection during research. The researcher would be free to do as they please, as they don’t have any ethical guidelines to consider.

As a professional in the psychology field one must attend to both the privileges and responsibilities of the profession. Society agrees to accept the knowledge of the professional based on specific training. It is the responsibility of the professional to do no harm, to regulate and to ensure self-respect and well-being of individuals they serve and the community. Historically there were many types of psychological researchs that occurred that would not be allowed under today’s standards. In the past there were standards however, they were not always so strict, which is how some unethical psychological researchs transpired back then. Today, the American Psychological Association has ethical guidelines or “code of ethics” regarding psychological researchs that every professional must adhere to.

Ethical dilemmas are one of the many sensitive issues that come with doing psychological research with human participants. As seen in several famous psychology studies such as the Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, and Tuskegee experiment, ethics in psychological studies are important to protect both the individuals being subjected to research and the researcher. While these specific experiments did not include children, it does bring up an important conversation regarding ethics in research. There are several guidelines put in place by the American Psychological Association to protect humans during research. However, special considerations and guidelines are put into place when working with

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.

The study failed the first ethical guideline for people. According to the textbook, the book states the “the rights and well-being of participants must be weighed against the studies value to science” where in other words, the participant’s well-being is the primary concern before the research. However, Zimbardo was driven to investigate the human behavior from a mock prison where he took the research more into account than the participant’s

I have learned that “what” the research finds isn’t the only thing that is important. We need to also be considered with “how” they went about finding it. The treatment of the research participants is always a consideration when doing research. Beneficence is the process of finding the most accurate results possible while ensuring fair treatment of the participants (Cozby & Bates, 2012). Some steps taken to ensure proper treatment of participants begin with informed consent. This ensures that those involved understand the all parts of the research that may affect their decision to participate (Cozby & Bates, 2012). This does not necessarily mean that there is full disclosure as that may interfere with accurate results. Debriefing is helpful after the completion of the research to counteract any ill effects suffered because of the research (Cozby & Bates, 2012). A safeguard in place to further protect participants is the Institutional Review Board. This board is in place and responsible for the research conditions taking place at their institution (Cozby & Bates, 2012). Another way to protect participants is confidentiality. This can be achieved through anonymous questionnaires, or coding of answers to protect privacy (Cozby & Bates, 2012). Protection doesn’t only apply

Ethical concerns among the field of psychology aren’t taboo, especially dating back before the 1980’s. The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted in 1971, is considered one of the most notorious experiments conducted at Stanford University as well as in the realm of social psychology as a whole. The superintendent of the experiment, Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, has faced an ethical confliction after the experiment was terminated. The purpose of the experiment was to evaluate how innocent individuals would react in a mock-jail scenario, both Zimbardo and his colleagues claimed they never expected such an outcome that occurred. Though many appraise the scandalous experiment, some view it as unprincipled and disreputable.

After reviewing the research and publication ethic principles, a violation of multiple sections seen. Section 8.05 reads, psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves. Participants were indeed placed under stressful conditions during the research. 8.07 concerning Deception states that Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress. This research went against both ethical principles.

The hypothesis behind ethical research is to ensure no harm is caused (Orb, Eisenhauer & Wynaden, 2000) and although it was envisaged there would be minimal risk pertaining to participants during this study, as they were all accredited and experienced therapists and so not deemed a vulnerable group, the researcher was aware there was always a possibility that unintended distress or vicarious trauma could arise at any time due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter and was therefore conscious of her duty and responsibility to protect the participants at all times (Orb et al,

Researchers in both social, natural and medical sciences many times involve human subjects in research; sometimes individuals, small groups or large groups. Likewise, researchers may also have to work with children or adults with mental illnesses, physical disabilities, prisoners or other vulnerable groups, in various contexts and in different settings like prisons, zones of conflicts, homes, schools or in clinical settings. Therefore, the ethical principles of research involving human subjects are applied to all of these research settings (Creswell, 2013). There are some basic principles or ethical considerations that should be applied in all research settings wherein humans are used as subjects.

It's often thought that ethics are the moral "way" of life, however, I have wondered if it is merely a pause in the growth of the field of psychology. Research is important to psychologists as it develops theories to a state which could be considerable. However, according to the British psychology, society, researchers must give the participants informed consent, which involves briefing and debriefing. Others confidentiality, deception, and participants must have the right to withdraw. Even though I agree with many of these, it's deception and Informed consent I deem mandatory as without them the research is unreliable. I believe this is the factor that is building a wall to the progression of psychology and I intend to dig to the

The introduction of the Nuremberg Code in 1947 was a direct consequence of the Nuremberg Trials in which various Nazi doctors were found guilty of carrying out brutal and heinous research experiments on humans during the second World War. Subsequently, the key principles contained in the Code became the basis of ethical behaviour in any medical or psychological research which includes the involvement of human participants (cited in Banyard, 2012). It is now universally understood that the health, safety, wellbeing and human rights of every research study participant is protected. Conversely, it is the opinion of some that the introduction of the Nuremberg Code has resulted in limitations to the results obtained from these research studies, and, as a result, to the development of psychological theory. It is the purpose of this essay, therefore, to address the claim that adhering to a code of ethics limits the development of psychological theory. In the paragraphs to follow, various evidence and alternative viewpoints will be provided both for and against this claim, as well as an evaluation of the impact in adhering to these ethical principles for researchers.

The American Psychological Association has compiled, the ethical principles and codes to assure integrity within the generalized field of psychology. Psychological professionals are continually met with ethical quandaries both professionally and personally, the code of ethics serve as a valuable tool for psychological professionals. APA’s 9th code is Assessment: psychology professions are culpable to use, reliable and valid appraisal of tests to individuals in their native language. It is vital that the professional procure informed consent,

They must follow the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct,” n which requires them to debrief the participants and clear any possible misconceptions. Furthermore, if a psychologist is presented with the dilemma of having his ethical responsibilities conflict with the law or other such governing bodies, he should honor his commitment to the Ethics Code. These are two critical advancements of human ethics in two broad fields of scientific research. Although there is advancement in human ethics (as previously stated) more could be done to acknowledge and advance human ethics. However, others might look to these new laws and deem the issue of human ethics in scientific research to be properly met. The issue of stem cell research would quickly change this wishful