Go Toopa Ethics Links To An External Site And Carefully Revi

Go Toapa Ethicslinks To An External Siteand Carefully Review The Gene

Go to APA EthicsLinks to an external site. and carefully review the General Principles and Sections. Describe two past famous psychological studies in detail. Are the studies ethical by today’s standards? Why or why not? Be specific. Identify which principles and sections of the APA Ethics Code relate to the studies. Explain how they relate. All answers should be written in complete sentences and should be clear and concise. Taking language word for word from the websites without properly citing and giving credit to the author(s) is plagiarism. It will be penalized as outlined in the Kean University Academic Integrity policy. The assignment should be a minimum of 750 – 1000 words. Upload as a Word document. Include a reference page following strict APA 7th edition format.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical landscape of psychological research has evolved significantly over the decades, driven by a heightened awareness of participants' rights and well-being. The American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics serves as a fundamental guideline for conducting research responsibly, emphasizing principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, fidelity, integrity, justice, and respect for people's rights and dignity. To contextualize these ethical standards, it is instructive to analyze two historically significant psychological studies—Milgram’s obedience experiment and the Stanford prison experiment—and evaluate their ethicality based on contemporary standards.

Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Study

Conducted in the early 1960s, Milgram’s obedience study aimed to investigate the extent to which ordinary individuals would comply with authority figures to inflict pain on others, revealing startling insights into human behavior during the Holocaust era (Milgram, 1963). Participants believed they were involved in a learning experiment, administering electric shocks to a learner whenever errors were made. Unbeknownst to the participants, the shocks were fake, but the participants were distressed and believed they were causing real pain.

From a contemporary standpoint, Milgram’s study raises significant ethical concerns. The primary issues revolve around the distress caused to participants, the lack of fully informed consent, and the absence of proper debriefing protocols. According to the APA Ethical Principles (American Psychological Association, 2017), researchers must minimize harm and provide thorough debriefing; in Milgram's case, while debriefing was conducted, the emotional toll and the deceptive nature of the experiment could be considered ethically problematic today.

The study relates directly to APA Principles Section B (Fidelity and Responsibility), which emphasizes establishing trust and ensuring participants' well-being. It also implicates Section A (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence), highlighting the obligation to protect participants from harm. Milgram’s study’s potential to cause lasting psychological distress contradicts current mandates requiring researchers to assess and minimize risks proactively.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Led by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, the Stanford prison experiment sought to examine the psychological effects of perceived power within a simulated prison environment. College students volunteered, with some assigned to be guards and others prisoners. The study was cut short after only six days due to extreme behavioral responses, including abuse, psychological distress, and loss of autonomy experienced by participants.

This experiment exemplifies ethical violations by modern standards, especially concerning participant safety and voluntary consent. Many participants displayed symptoms of emotional trauma, and the lack of immediate intervention by researchers compromised their welfare. Under the current APA guidelines, the study would violate Principles of Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity (Section D), since participants were not adequately protected from harm, and their perceived roles induced real psychological harm. Furthermore, the authority and situational influence compromised voluntary participation, contravening the principle of informed consent (Section D), as participants were not fully aware of the potential for harm or how they might react.

The experiment also highlights issues related to the fiduciary responsibility of researchers (Section B), particularly the duty to intervene if participants are at risk of harm. The ethical lapses in this study serve as a cautionary tale, illustrating how failure to adhere to modern standards can lead to psychological harm and undermine the integrity of research (Banuazizi & Movahedi, 1975).

Comparison with Contemporary Ethical Standards

Both studies, conducted decades ago, would be considered unethical today due to their failure to adequately protect participants' welfare, secure informed consent, and ensure confidentiality. The APA Ethics Code’s emphasis on minimizing harm, ensuring informed consent, and debriefing reflects a more participant-centered approach, recognizing the vulnerability of psychological research subjects.

The Milgram and Stanford studies, though groundbreaking in their contributions to understanding human behavior, exemplify ethical pitfalls that modern guidelines seek to prevent. These standards emphasize the importance of reviewing research protocols through Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), thorough risk assessment, and implementing safeguards against psychological and physical harm.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both the Milgram obedience study and the Stanford prison experiment significantly advanced psychological science but failed to meet today's strict ethical standards for safeguarding participant well-being. They highlight the importance of adhering to the APA principles of beneficence, respect, and responsibility. Current ethical guidelines aim to ensure that research not only yields valuable insights but also respects the dignity and rights of participants, preventing harm and promoting trust in psychological science (American Psychological Association, 2017). The evolution of ethics in research underscores a commitment to responsible practice, ensuring that scientific progress does not come at the expense of human dignity.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
  • Banuazizi, A., & Movahedi, S. (1975). The Stanford prison experiment: A simulation study of the psychology of imprisonment. American Psychologist, 30(2), 152-177.
  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
  • Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). The power and pathology of imprisonment. Journal of Social Issues, 27(4), 23-42.
  • Overholser, J. C. (2017). Ethical considerations in psychological research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 301-310.
  • Resnik, D. B. (2018). Ethical principles in research involving human subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 44(7), 454-458.
  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press.
  • Fisher, C. B. (2013). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Sage Publications.
  • Gerrig, R. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). Psychology and life. Allyn & Bacon.
  • Levy, S. (2019). Ethical challenges in social psychological research. American Psychologist, 74(4), 434-445.

Related Assignments