Zhang 1

Malin Zhang

Mr. Murphy

Philosophy

April 16, 2020

Should there be limits on psychological experiments

Psychological experiments have revealed negative and positive outcomes, where the
findings have in turn been utilized to understand, as well as impact human behaviors. Opponents
of the assessments express that they have the likelihood of breaching the participants’ consent.
This can be validated with reference to Stanford prison experiment (SPE), where the members’
decisions to withdraw were overruled to fulfill the research’s goal (Kulig, Pratt, and Cullen
77).The circumstance contradicts the assertions of philosophers, such as Thomas Aquinas who
emphasized on the significance of free will in the society (Aquinas and Regan 101). The
experiments also ought to be controlled to restrict exploitation of impoverished and marginalized
groups. Further, the assessments have to be controlled toprohibit undesirable behaviors among
the subjects. Nonetheless, proponents of psychological experiments defend that the studies are
quite essential in comprehending human behavior and developments. Harry F. Harlow’s studies,
for instance, allowed the researchers and the globe at large to discern the impact of maternal care
towards the young ones. There should be limitations on psychological experiments to prevent
human abuses, as well as undesirable outcomes.

Psychological experiments can breach the participants’ consent. The experiments ought to
be monitored and controlled to ensure that they adhere to the rules concerning the use of human
subjects (Martin 25). A notable example is the Stanford prison experiment. The investigation
concerned the evaluation of the impact of power, notably from correctional officers towards
inmates. It was directed by professor Zimbardo in 1971 in which he utilized college learners to
assume the undersigned roles to facilitate the simulation study (Kulig, Pratt, and Cullen76).
Ideally, the participants were assigned the inmate or officer’s role by flipping a coin. The officers
subjected the inmates to psychological torture by applying autocratic measures towards the
 Zhang 2

persons. Some inmates also accepted psychological abuse without due consent, whereby other
inmates who opposed the actions were subjected to similar circumstances. Allegedly, professor
Zimbardo had directed the officers to apply autocratic and sadistic personalities to subdue the
convicts(Kulig, Pratt, and Cullen 77).Additionally, despite the investigation initially highlighting
that the members had the liberty to withdraw from the process at any given time, the professor
did not permit this. This influenced the detainees to be subjected to psychologically harmful and
hazardous circumstances that in effect compromised the legitimacy of the process. This can be
justified by the fact three of the detainees had to be withdrawn from the study prematurely due to
trauma, besides the study being terminated indefinitely (Kulig, Pratt, and Cullen 78).The
negative outcomes of the study can be explained via Thomas Aquinas assertions with respect to
free will. According to him, will and by extension choice are free, and are not controlled by
nature in any particular case (Aquinas and Regan 101). The philosopher explained that naturally,
individuals are bound to exercise free choice since it is provided freely by nature. In light of this,
the actions of both the professor and the officers were thus unjustified given that they
contradicted the principle of free will. Nevertheless, the principle has been refuted by other
scholars, such as David Hume. The Scottish philosopher argued that free will is nothing but a
verbal aspect. He highlighted that individuals may perceive ‘free will’ based on the actions and
sensations that they experience while undertaking the acts (velleity). Nevertheless, upon
reflection, the persons will discern that their actions were predetermined from the start. The
scholar demonstrates that freedom is only experienced with respect to the provisions of the
existing regulations (Berofsky 93). He reveals that self-determinationis subject to the directives
that are stipulated by laws. Based on this, the inmates’ consents were over ruled since the
‘existing law’ not only demanded the participants to stay the course, but also face disciplin
aryactions.

The experiments ought to be controlled to restrict exploitation of impoverished and

marginalized groups. The dimension can be exemplified with reference to the circumstances of
the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. The study was executed by the Public Health Service of
America in 1932, where the institution encompassed four hundred African Americans from the
lower class(Cobb 345). The research concerned the assessment of untreated syphilis among the
 Zhang 3

blacks, as well as the impact of treated syphilis among the whites. Distinctly, patients from the
minority group were neither informed on the existence of the illness upon diagnosis, nor the
precise purpose of the experiment. The examiners informed the blacks that the investigation
intended to assess their long term health performances, but failed to notify the persons on the
ailment and that the victims could actually be treated (Cobb 346). At the time, the illness’s cure,
penicillin, had been discovered but was concealed and not availed to the patients. The
participants were enticed with free burial insurance cover, medical checkup, and food as
incentives for participating in the experiment (Cobb 346). After funds supporting the initiative
were depleted, the experiment was still upheld, subsequently compromising the health of the
affected persons. Supposedly, the research was required to take six months, but ended up taking
forty years. In my perception, this was blatant disrespect of human life, particularly towards the
blacks, besides the Public Health Service (PHS) breaching the code of ethics. Syphilis is a deadly
illness that not only has the capacity to harm the victims’ reproductive systems, but also their
central nervous systems. Based on the provisions of regulatory bodies, such as the American
Psychological Association, all subjects ought to have been treated fairly, besides being
adequately debriefed concerning the particulars of the investigation. However, the subjects
consented to the program given the presumed reputation of the agency. In my opinion, the study
constituted scientific racism where the lives and welfare of sick African Americans were ignored
for the realization of PHS disguised objectives.

In spite of this, proponents of psychological experiments defend that the studies are quite
essential in comprehending human behavior and developments. In consideration of Harry F.
Harlow’s studies that were executed in mid twentieth century on monkeys, he revealed the
impact of maternal care towards young ones (Suomi, Horst, and Veer 356). Following this, he
documented that young babies alike monkeys, required affection, comfort, companionship, and
security to develop normally. In the investigation, premature rhesus monkeys were detached
from their mothers and raised in cages, as wellas laboratories in order to observe their behaviors.
The infants were either placed with a simulated terryclothedmother or a wire mother. The two
mothers provided distinguished items, that is, the terry clothed mother offered comfort and
softness whilst the other offered food (Suomi, Horst, and Veer 358). Despite the wire mother
 Zhang 4

offering food, the young monkeys were predominantly attached to the terry clothed mother. The
isolated moneys were also discoveredto showcase undesirable tendencies like self-injury, anti-
socialness, or circling around their cages. Further, the infantshad the tendency to cling to their
cloth-diapers, besides dying due to self-starvation(Suomi, Horst, and Veer 358).The findings
significantly conform to Aristotle’s submissions. Supposedly, he clarified that man was a social
animal (Hoffe 215). He objected to explore human nature, where he established that there was a
circular relationship between communities and individuals. I agree with this assumption given
that individuals are hardly self-sufficient, and can barely succeed without the assistanceor
association with other persons. Even though proponents of psychological experiments cite
beneficial outcomes, the outcomes are adverse going by the responses of the monkeys.’The
animals showed undesirable behaviors due to the tormenting effects of maternal deprivation,
includings egregation. Considering that monkeys and humans belong to the same primate class, I
believe it was crueland unethical to subject the young monkeys to such environments since they
experience similar emotions as humans.

Lastly, the experiments have to be controlled since they can influence aggressive behaviors
among the subjects. This can be justified via Bobo Doll Experiment that was conducted by
Stanford University in the 1960s. During the research, the subjects, children, were exposed to
different videos, including materials in which the actors could be seen hitting a bobo doll
aggressively(McLeod 1). The subjects were thereafter placed in a room containing an identical
doll to assess their engagement mannerisms. For subjects that were exposed to the aggressive-
model, it was established that a majority of them displayed hostile tendencies towards the doll
(McLeod 3).The occurrence can be justified by the assertions of John Locke. He ascertained that
the constructs of knowledge and reason emanate from experiences(Matthews 81). The
assumption was however dismissed by Rene Descartes who convinced that the knowledge of the
globe is based oninnate resources that exist in the mind (Matthews 24). In my observation, I tend
to support Locke’s assertion that experience can profoundly impact the behaviors of individuals.
In the Bobo doll assessment, the subjects showcased hostile behaviors towards the models as a
result of observing and imitating the actors. Based on this, experiments among young
 Zhang 5

populations should keenly be controlled, if not prohibited, to avoid influencing unfavorable

attitudes and practices towards the participants.

In conclusion, the paper has affirmed that there should be restrictions on psychological
experiments to prevent human abuses, including unfavorable outcomes. With reference to Bobo
Doll Experiment, for example, the subjects that were exposed to the aggressive-model displayed
hostile tendencies towards the dollas a result of observing and imitating the actors. Similarly, in
Tuskegee syphilis experiment, the infected patients from the minority group were not informed
on the illness upon diagnosis, nor the precise purpose of the experiment, thereby being
susceptible to hazardous health consequences.
 Zhang 6

Works cited

Berofsky, Bernard. Nature's Challenge to Free Will. Oxford [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2012.
Print.

Cobb, Montague. “The Tuskegee syphilis study.”Journal of the National Medical

Association,vol. 65,4 (1973): 345-8

Hooffe, Otfried. Aristotle's "nicomachean Ethics". Leiden: Brill, 2010. Print.

Kulig, Teresa, Travis Pratt, and Francis Cullen.Revisiting theStanford Prison Experiment: A
Case Study in Organized Skepticism, Journal of Criminal JusticeEducation, 28:1, 2017,
74-111,

McLeod, Saul. Bobo Doll Experiment.Simply Psychology, 2014, pp. 1-5

Martin, David W. Doing Psychology Experiments. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008. Print.

Matthews, Gareth B. The Philosophy of Chilod Hood. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University
Press, 1994. Print.

Regan, Richard J. S, and Richard J. Regan. Summary of Philosophy - a Summary of Philosophy. ,

2003. Print.

Suomi, Stephen & van der Horst, Frank & van der Veer, Rene. Rigorous Experiments on
Monkey Love: An Account of Harry F. Harlow’s Role in the History of Attachment
 Zhang 7

Theory. Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 42(4), 2008, 354-

69.10.1007/s12124-008-9072-9.