More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics in experimentation pros and cons
Essay on ethics and norms in research
Essay on ethics and norms in research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Social Influence Research - Do the Ends Justify the Means?
To what extent does the importance of social influence research,
justify the methods used in its investigation?
The debate about ethics in psychology focuses on two areas: protection
of participants and benefiting society. This is a double obligation
dilemma as if some psychologists are not allowed to do certain
experiments because of ethical restraints; this can cause problems
with validity. In social psychology, these psychologists have an
obligation to use their research skills to advance our knowledge of
human behaviour, for the ultimate aim of human betterment.
Milgram’s study into obedience involved participants becoming a
‘teacher’ and applying an electric shock to the ‘learner’ (who was a
confederate) when they answered a word association question
incorrectly. The participant was not aware that the shocks they
administered were false and some believed they may have killed a man.
In this instance therefore, the code of conduct and ethical guidelines
published by the British Psychological Society (BPS) and American
Psychological Society (APS) in 1993 were broken in more than one way.
The participants’ right to withdraw was disabled as the prods given by
the experimenter (such as “please continue” etc) made the participants
feel that they had no choice but to continue. The were also involved
in deception as they thought they had administered real shocks and
were not informed of the confederate being present. This study,
however, was conducted in the 1950’s and the ethical guidelines were
not in position and therefore this study may be published in modern
day t...
... middle of paper ...
...very
case. For example, there was only one prisoner who tried to resist and
went on a hunger strike. When he was put into solitary confinement the
others were allowed to release him by means of giving up their
blankets. They refused. They saw they situation as every man for
themselves. Another benefit to society was also the impression this
experiment left on the prison system in America at the time, and some
aspects of this were changed as a result.
Therefore in conclusion, in these two experiments alone, the unethical
methods used can be justified as they have helped to profit humanity
by providing insight into how humans behave when put into certain
social situations. Without these ethical guidelines being broken, both
experiments would have lacked ecological validity and the results
would not be legitimate.
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. 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 is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
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
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
Asch and Milgram’s experiment was 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 details of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress, Asch and Milgram’s replicated the reality of life. In “Options and Social Pressure” Solomon E. Asch conducts an experiment to show the power of social influence, by using the lengths of sticks that the participants had to match up with the best fit, Asch then developed different scenarios to see how great the power of influence is, but what he discovered is that people always conformed to the majority regardless of how big or small the error was the individual always gave in to the power of the majority.
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures. He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority figures. Milgram is well aware of his audience and organization throughout his article, uses quotes directly from his experiment and connects his research with a real world example to make his article as effective as possible.
Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine).While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, in Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from
In, Body Work by Sara Paretsky, the Guaman family’s homophobia damages their family by causing both Allie’s rape and death, and the covering up of them. Homophobia manages to cause all of this damage because it is a powerful social control mechanism, meaning it leads individuals towards conformity, and shames and or ostracizes those who don’t conform to the societal norm. In this case, the societal norm is heterosexuality, and homosexuals are shamed and ostracized for deviating from that norm. Allie is ashamed of being a lesbian and decides to serve in Iraq in the hope that she can repent for her “sins,” and her family is so ashamed of her homosexuality that they must deny it, which allows Tintrey to cover up the truth behind Allie’s death.
Society is ever changing and the people are just the same. Throughout history, it is shown that people change and mold to their surroundings. But when a deeper look is taken it is revealed that there is a minority that is unwilling or unable to fit these standards as most people do. These people tend to be forced into seclusion or made to fend for themselves. This is shown through the colonization of America and up into more recent times. The Native Americans are the first to make a life on this land, and when the English set up a new society, the Natives are forced onto smaller and smaller plots of land until forced to conform or to live on a reservation. The idea of this societal conformity is shown in “What You Pawn I Will Redeem” by Sherman Alexie, a short story author. Society's pressure to improve an individual living differently is hurting more than it is helping.
Summary of the Experiment 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 increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
Coercion is the act of affecting someone's behavior with ways such as force, threats, deceit, or anything beyond reasoning and evidence. When it comes to the Government, Mill believes that the Government has a strict limit as to how it can coerce its citizens. The Government is meant to protect our civil liberties and prevent others from harming people. So, in order to protect our civil liberties, the Government must take some of them away with such laws for example, making murder illegal. In terms of social coercion, according to Mill, it is only acceptable to coerce someone in order to prevent them from harming others, this excludes Paternalism which is preventing people from harming themselves. Mill does not believe in Paternalism, because allowing people to do what they want when it comes to themselves is the cost of freedom and it is how people define their character.
Social forces always come along with behaviors, whether they’re good or bad. They create who people are and can even help identify who we are. Those forces can even help with identifying others too. But they can become dangerous and they shape who a person will grow up to be. If they're influenced to do amazing things or horrible things, help others in need or ignore them. Social forces are beyond our control. Nothing can change them. Social forces influence identities and become dangerous. Gender, race, time and place are just three social forces. All can have negative effects associated with them, the stereotyping of gender, saying that a girl has to dress nice, or cook in the kitchen, race and being discriminated against for not being a certain color, or even how being in a certain place can affect a persons identity, on the way they should act. Using references from To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee and other various other resources.
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
Theory of social penetration Introduction In class, we discussed and later investigated different theories about human relationships. All these theories examined why and how people relate to each other, as well as tried to explain why they choose a particular relationship and not others. I came across the theory of Social Penetration while reading after one of our classes. Two American sociologists, Altman and Taylor, developed the theory. They insist, ".relations include various levels of intimacy, exchange or degree of social penetration.