Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics of psychology
Ethics of psychology
Stanley milgram experiment purpose
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics of psychology
Deception; most people think that deception is only useful for lying. However deception is a controversial aspect of some research. Research has advanced humanity to the modern age. But how much,if any,should deception be used in the name of science? This was one of the questions raised from the ethically infamous psychology experiment, called the Milgram experiment conducted in 1961 at Yale University by psychologist Stanley Milgram. I say deception should be allowed in experiments, as long as it is deemed ethical. The experiment was designed to see if people would commit morally questionable acts just because someone with authority asked them to. The first deceptive part of the experiment was the experiment description itself. The volunteers were told that they would be experimenting how punishment affects memory, not about their willingness to commit acts that are morally questionable. The experiment involved three people. “the experimenter”, a volunteer, and an actor pretending to be another volunteer. Both “volunteers” were given a slip of paper which both read …show more content…
If the subjects had known they were being studied on the orders to shock the learner, then they would have subconsciously reacted differently. In one article “The Role of Deception” published by the Wall Street Journal, it states “Often researchers use deception when they want to study behavior that people can't or won't honestly engage in if they know why they are being studied such as to learn whether they use illegal drugs.” By using deception in this way does not hurt anyone, and researchers only use deception when absolutely necessary. If a subject knows they are being watched or know what the researchers are watching for their reactions would not be genuine and therefore compromise the experiment. This is the reason why deception is a crucial part of experiments that studies that are based on
However, all of the participants continued to administer up to three-hundred volts. These were everyday “normal” people that functioned successfully in society. Slater had the opportunity to interview one of the participants of Milgram’s experiment, one which happened to follow through with the shocks all the way to the very last one. During the interview the participant stated, “You thought you were really giving shocks, and nothing can take away from you the knowledge of how you acted” (Slater, 59). These words came from the mouth of an “average joe” that never knew what he was capable of before the experiment. With these words, we are reminded that we are not as “nice” as we’d like to think we
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 learning. The learner was strapped into a chair that resembles a miniature electric chair, and was told he would have to learn a small list of word pairs. For each incorrect answer he would be given electric shocks of increasing intensity ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The experimenter informed the teacher's job was to administer the shocks. The...
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
The Asch and Milgram’s experiment were not unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the detail of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress Asch and Milgram’s were
“Ethical Issues of the Milgram Experiment.” Associated Content. Yahoo, 8 November 2008. Web. 12 October 2011.
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
Stanley Milgram selected 40 college participants aged 20-50 to take part in the experiment at Yale University. Milgram says, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measureable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim” (632). Although the 40 men or women thought that they were in a drawing to see who would be the “teacher” and the “learner,” the drawing was fixed. The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually being shocked, the teachers believed t...
In the Stanford Prison Experiment many of the prisoners obeyed the guards even though they were in such extreme discomfort mentally to not have to face the harsher treatments of not obeying them. However, not all of them followed their order and kept protesting their inhuman orders, even knowing with the harsh treatment that came afterwards. Like the Milligram Experiment, the teachers understood the harsh pain they were enlisting into the students, they continued the orders of the experiment to increase the shocks after every wrong answer. Then again, like the Stanford Experiment, not all of them followed the order of guards as did a few of the teachers in the Milligram experiment. Two prisoners left the Stanford experiment and presumably the same could be said for the Milligram
The real focus of the experiment is the teacher. He will be in charge of a shock generator. The teacher does not know that the learner, supposedly the victim, is actually an actor who receives no shock whatsoever. Again this experiment is to see if the teacher proceeds with the shocks that are ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim.
...res; it is how we are raised to obey authority such as parents or teachers. Some have argued that individuals today are more aware of the dangers of following authority than they were in the early 1960s. This experiment is biased because the participants are all male and all were volunteers. Milgram points out that the majority of the subjects knew what they were doing was not right or moral. Opting out of the experiment would be wrong on the victim’s part because they agreed to go through even after they knew they were going to be the victim. Overall, disobedience was hard to do in an experiment such as this once. Participants felt as though they had a duty to fulfill this study and that they had to go through with it. Participants put their morals aside for this experiment which is why the outcome of victims that made it to the final series of shocks was so high.
In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because; whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks were increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on t...
His experiment consisted on recruiting forty male participants in the range of twenty to fifty years old. Participants were told that they were taking part in an experiment investigating the effects that will be involved when punishment is given while learning. All participants were asked to give electric shocks for every wrong answers by an electric shock generator. Here Obedience was performed by a laboratory technician.
In 1963s, Stanley Milgram, a Yale professor, conducted an experiment that sparked intense controversy throughout the nation(Milgram 77). Milgram attempted to pinpoint evil in its rawest form: through ordinary people. This was achieved by placing an ordinary person, called the teacher, in a situation in which an instructor pressured the subject, called the teacher, to shock another person, called the learner(Milgram 78). Despite hearing the progressively agonizing screams of the learner, the teacher continued to comply with the directives given by the instructor, thereby selecting obedience over morality(Milgram 80). While this experiment was revered and praised by many scientists and psychologists,
In the natural sciences there are always ethical norms that limit how knowledge can be produced. In the natural sciences, experimentation is an important method of producing knowledge but ethical judgments can limit the use of this method. There are areas that are considered unethical ...
Honesty and integrity are two major core Catholic and humanist values that many students in modern times seem to lack. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, honesty is defined as "the quality of being fair and truthful." Honesty plays a huge role in our society and daily lives. Honesty is a key characteristic that makes up a person, and defines who they truly are. Usually, if a person is very honest, which according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary means, “the quality of being honest and fair.” As you can see, the definition of honesty and integrity go hand in hand. Just as Spencer Johnson tells us, “Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.” Without honesty, there is absolutely no integrity. In the past few years, many major corporations conducted tests to determine how much of the world’s population was considered, “honest.” WalletTest.com conducted an experiment in which one hundred wallets were left on the streets on purpose, filled with a good amount of cash, and a picture identification card to explicitly show who the wallet belonged to. Of those one hundred wallets, seventy four of them were returned and twenty six were not. The sample of people they used were of mixed gender, age, and race, giving a good testing sample. The results were good, showing that most people were honest, and the honest people outnumbered the dishonest people nearly three to one. Honesty and integrity does not only play a large role in daily life situations, however. Honesty and integrity play a large role in academics in different levels of expertise: Elementary, High School, and College.