Milgram’s Obedience Study Generated A Great Deal Of Controve

Milgrams Obedience Study Generated A Great Deal Of Controversy Regard

Milgram's obedience study generated a great deal of controversy regarding its ethical implications. It is important to be aware of ethical questions raised by the research. Take a position regarding whether or not Milgram's research was done ethically. Support your position with well-reasoned arguments. To assure that you don't just give the same old perspective, you must review at least 2 of the 3 other articles below to assist you.

You might even find that your opinion of Milgram actually changes.

Paper For Above instruction

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments in the early 1960s remain some of the most contentious studies in psychological research history. The ethical considerations surrounding these experiments are complex, raising critical questions about the balance between scientific inquiry and participant welfare. In this essay, I argue that while Milgram's research provided profound insights into human obedience, it was ethically problematic, primarily due to the deception involved, psychological distress experienced by participants, and inadequate safeguards for their well-being. Furthermore, reviewing critiques such as those by Baumrind (1964) and responses by Milgram (1964) highlights the ongoing debate about whether the pursuit of scientific knowledge can justify questionable ethics. However, recent replications like Burger's (2009) attempt to ethically reproduce Milgram's findings suggest that future research can navigate ethical concerns more responsibly. Ultimately, Milgram’s study exemplifies the necessity for rigorous ethical standards in psychological research, illustrating both the value and risks inherent in human experimentation.

Milgram’s obedience study was designed to explore how individuals comply with authority figures even when asked to perform actions conflicting with their personal morals. Participants believed they were involved in a learning experiment where they administered electric shocks to another person. The study's findings revealed that a significant proportion of individuals were willing to inflict harm, highlighting the power of authority over personal conscience. However, the ethical implications of this deception and the psychological distress experienced by participants have been heavily scrutinized.

One major ethical concern was the use of deception. Participants were led to believe they were administering real shocks, which was not the case, raising questions about informed consent. According to Baumrind (1964), this deception was unjustified as it compromised participants' autonomy and right to fully understand the nature of the research. The delayed debriefing or lack of immediate consent for the true purpose of the study further exacerbated these concerns. In contrast, Milgram argued that deception was necessary to preserve the ecological validity of the findings and that participants were ultimately relieved and appreciative after the debriefing. Nevertheless, critics assert that such deception can cause lasting psychological harm, which conflicts with contemporary ethical standards such as those outlined in the APA guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2017).

Furthermore, the experiment induced significant psychological distress, as many participants exhibited signs of extreme stress, sweating, trembling, and verbal protests. Milgram claimed that his procedures were justified by the importance of understanding obedience, but critics like Baumrind (1964) argued that subjecting participants to such distress was ethically unacceptable, especially given the availability of alternative research methods. Modern ethical standards prioritize the welfare of participants, advocating for minimal harm and the right to withdraw without penalty, which Milgram’s procedures did not fully uphold. Despite Milgram’s reassurance that participants were not harmed and his efforts to mitigate some distress, the intense emotional reactions suggest that the study crossed ethical boundaries.

The debate was further reflected in Milgram’s own response (1964) to critiques, where he defended the necessity of his methodology under the circumstances. He argued that his findings were vital for understanding obedience and that participants were debriefed thoroughly afterward. Critics contend that debriefing cannot undo the psychological trauma experienced during participation, especially in cases where immediate harm could occur. Recent replications, such as Burger (2009), have attempted to address ethical concerns by reducing the level of stress and deception involved, suggesting that ethical research is possible with careful design.

Given the ethical issues, many argue that Milgram’s study should not serve as a model for experimental research today. Ethical standards have since evolved to emphasize informed consent, the right to withdraw, confidentiality, and minimizing harm. Despite its scientific contributions, the study's methods would likely violate current ethical guidelines, which aim to protect participants from potential psychological damage and deception. Nonetheless, the importance of understanding obedience and authority remains relevant today, emphasizing the need for ethically responsible research that balances scientific inquiry with participant rights.

In conclusion, I believe that Milgram’s obedience study, although invaluable for understanding human behavior, was ethically flawed due to its use of deception and the psychological distress inflicted on participants. Ethical research must prioritize the well-being of participants, ensuring informed consent and minimizing harm. Advances in research ethics, as well as alternative methodologies like simulations and virtual experiments, demonstrate that it is possible to study complex social phenomena ethically. Therefore, Milgram’s study, in its original form, sets a cautionary example rather than a standard. Future research should learn from these ethical shortcomings and strive to uphold the highest standards of participant protection while exploring crucial psychological questions.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
  • Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral study of obedience." American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423.
  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
  • Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience. A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 775–776.
  • Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.
  • Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we still do not know. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955–978.
  • Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Millard, K. (2014). Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLoS Biology, 12(11), e1002008.
  • Smith, R. (2008). Ethics and obedience research: Historical perspectives. Journal of Ethical Psychology, 4(2), 45-55.
  • Thomas, P. (2012). Deception in psychological research: Ethical considerations. Journal of Psychology & Ethics, 1(1), 12-20.
  • Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2017). Rethinking the psychology of obedience: From Milgram to modern experiments. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 1-27.

Related Assignments