Burk Bosse

4/15/2010
Psychology 101
Ethical or Not?

Looking through the ages there have been many psychologists,

who, in order to learn more about the human development, such as the
mental processes, behavior, and the emotions of man, have conducted
numerous tests and exams, some ethical and some not. It is
understood that in the early years of psychology, ethics, although
present. Did not play such a large role at first, but as the science grew,
so did the question of ethics. This is what this paper will examine, with
the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment, both of
which created a lot of controversy, and brought the question of ethics
to the foreground.
For those not familiar with the Milgram experiment, this is how it
worked. As the subjects, (learner, naive subject) entered the room,
they were faced with a simulated generator, which looked rather
convincing and when the learner steps into his room to begin the
experiment, he is actually given an electric shock of 45 volts, which
causes him to cry out with pain. From there the learner is given more

and more question and for every wrong answer the voltage is
increased by the naive subject, till the naive subject begins to refuse to
continue with increasing the voltage, in fear of causing the leaners
death. Only he is urged on by the experimenter and although the naive
subject objects, he continues giving shock after shock hearing more
and more screams of pain from the learner. This experiment was to find
out about how obedient someone would be, who had a superior above
him. According to Stanley Milgram This laboratory situation gives us a
framework in which to study the subjects reactions to the principal
conflict of the experiment in which to study the subjects reaction to
the principal conflict of the experiment.
Again, this conflict is between the experimenters demands that he
continue to administer the electric shock, and the learners demands,
which become increasingly more insistent, that the experiment be
stopped. The crux of the study is to vary systematically the factors
believed to alter the degree of obedience to the experimental
commands, to learn under what conditions submission to authority is
most probable and under what conditions defiance is brought to the
fore( Milgram, p 104, 1977).
The Stanford prison experiment which took place at Stanford
University was also unique in the fact. Which, a fake prison was built
and volunteers were placed inside and their reactions were

documented as the experiment went along. As the experiment went

along some of the volunteers were assigned the role of mock prisoners,
while others became guards, etc. As, the experiment continued the
volunteers that became mock prisoners, suffered acute psychological
trauma and breakdowns, some of the students begged to be released
from the intense pains of less than a week of merely simulated
imprisonment, whereas others adapted by becoming blindly obedient
to the unjust authority of the guards (Haney, Zimbardo, p 17, 2001).
These volunteers were selected by tests that measured the
students mental toughness, the fact that they were lovers of peace,
such as Vietnam Doves instead of Hawks. Yet, as the experiment went
along, none of these factors help the volunteers to endure the
experiment, since it only lasted 6 days and had to be discontinued, as
not to bring more harm.
Now that both experiments have been gone over in some detail, it is
time to decide, were they ethical or unethical, to help us decide, I will
bring in some debate on the Milgram experiment. Diana Baumrind
argues, yes, that Stanley Milgrams study of obedience did not meet
ethical standards for research, because participants were subjected to
a research design that caused undue psychological stress that was not
resolved after the study. Whereas, Social psychologist Stanly Milgram
argues No, in response to Baumrinds accusations, asserts that the

study was well designed, the stress caused the participants could not
have been anticipated, and the participants anguish dissipated after a
thorough debriefing. Now, that we have heard from the experts. My
opinion is that whether an experiment is ethical or not, depends upon
how it is carried out, when it is over, is there concern for the
participants and does it cause mental anguish that might be short or
long term, which might have been seen in advance.
Therefore, I would have to say that the Milgram experiment was not
ethical because, nothing was done to find out if the participants were
mentally suited for the study. The Stanford prison experiment was
ethical because the psychologist did all they could do, to protect the
volunteers from harm, not expecting the eventual outcome.
I also believe that any experiment needs to be fully examined
before it is put to use on humans and/or animals. So many things can
go wrong, and even though what is learned, is not always good for the
many, for the sake of the few. We must also consider how many people
have suffered injury from an experiment done by novices that have no
idea what they are doing, have made no adequate preparations and in
some cases havent presented their experiment to the Head of the
Psychology Department, for review. As we have seen the results of the
Milgram experiment and I quote Diana Baum rind, once again Stanley
Milgrams, study of obedience did not meet ethical standards for

research. Looking back at the Stanford Prison experiment, with all

the precautions that were used with that study, things still went wrong
and the experimenters got surprised at every turn of the experiment,
which, caused the experiment to end, only after 6 days. Therefore
these experiments need to be done using lots of checks and balances
and lots of caution. I also believe that the ethics of most experiments
depend upon the mores of the times. When Psychology was in its
infancy, people didnt have a lot of information of what actually was
going on, and trusted the Doctors of Psychology, so ethics were not a
concern. Now that we live in the age of information and we know about
most of what is going on, ethics begins to play a larger role in our
society.
Which, forces the experimenters to take more and more
responsibility for their subjects and the experiment they are doing?
Even though I have taken the middle road on the ethics of the two
experiments, it doesnt mean that I myself, agree with what was done
in either experiment and believe that, just because people have no
taste for violence on the outside, there is no way to know what lurks on
the inside, just because it isnt expressed.