Review Of The Two Classic Psychology Studies: Milgram's Obed

Review The Two Classic Psychology Studies Milgrams Obedience To Auth

Review The two classic psychology studies (Milgram’s Obedience to Authority and Zimbardo’s Stamford Prison Experiment) under Readings and Resources. Using evidence from Chapter 3 of your textbook, as well as the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct, discuss two (2) ways in which research ethics were violated in one (1) of these studies. Then, discuss two (2) ways you would make the study more ethically sound if you were to rerun the study today. With your ethical considerations in place, do you think you would learn as much about obedience as Milgram did in his original research or as much as Zimbardo did about the power of social roles? Why or why not? Finally, do you think it was ethical that Milgram or Zimbardo only studied white males? How might their study results have differed if their sample was more culturally diverse?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The landmark studies of Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority have significantly contributed to our understanding of social psychology, particularly concerning obedience and the influence of social roles. While their findings have been profound, these studies also raise important ethical questions, especially given modern standards set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA). This paper examines two ethical violations present in these studies, proposes modifications to enhance current ethical standards, and reflects on the implications of these reforms for the depth of understanding gained. Additionally, it considers the ethics of sampling only white males and explores how more diverse sampling could influence the generalizability of results.

Ethical Violations in the Studies

Milgram’s obedience experiment is renowned for its high levels of psychological stress inflicted upon participants. Two notable ethical violations are evident in this study. First, the lack of informed consent is a significant concern; participants were not fully aware of the potential for distress or the nature of the procedures they would undergo. Although they consented voluntarily, the deceptive elements involved in convincing participants they were administering painful shocks compromised their autonomy (American Psychological Association, 2017). Second, the study failed to provide adequate debriefing. Participants were distressed during and after the experiment, yet the debriefing process was minimal and insufficient to alleviate the negative emotional impact, thus violating ethical standards requiring participants to be fully informed and supported.

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment also presents multiple ethical violations. A primary concern was the failure to protect participants from psychological harm. The simulation escalated quickly into emotional abuse, humiliation, and distress, yet ethical oversight allowed the experiment to proceed without intervening. Additionally, the lack of informed consent about the potential severity of psychological risks posed a significant ethical problem (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). The experiment’s environment fostered harm without proper safeguards, violating the APA’s principles emphasizing beneficence and nonmaleficence.

Suggestions for Ethical Improvements

To conduct these studies more ethically today, several modifications could be implemented. For Milgram’s experiment, one approach would be to improve informed consent by clearly explaining the potential for psychological discomfort without revealing the full scope of the deception, maintaining transparency while preserving scientific integrity. Moreover, incorporating a robust debriefing process involving psychological counseling could mitigate adverse effects, ensuring that participants leave the study without lingering emotional harm (Schultz & Schultz, 2016).

For Zimbardo’s study, establishing clear boundaries and regular monitoring by an independent ethics committee would ensure ongoing assessment of participant well-being. Implementing measures such as immediate withdrawal options and providing access to mental health support after the experiment would uphold the principles of beneficence. Additionally, pre-screening for psychological resilience might minimize potential harms, aligning with modern ethical standards.

Balancing Ethical Standards and Scientific Inquiry

Modern ethical considerations would likely limit the extent of harm and manipulation permissible in such studies, possibly reducing their capacity to uncover the nuances of obedience and social roles. While ethical reforms are crucial for protecting participants, they might restrict some methodologies, potentially impacting the depth of data collected. Nonetheless, employing innovative, ethically sound methods—such as simulated environments or virtual reality—could still yield meaningful insights without compromising participant rights (Moseley, 2020).

Therefore, while the original experiments provide invaluable insights, contemporary ethical standards might mean that the understanding of obedience and social influence would evolve differently, emphasizing participant welfare over exhaustive data collection. The delicate balance between ethical responsibility and scientific discovery must be maintained to advance psychology responsibly.

Ethics of Homogeneous Sampling

Both Zimbardo and Milgram’s studies primarily involved white male participants, raising ethical questions regarding the exclusivity and generalizability of their findings. From an ethical standpoint, focusing on a narrow demographic limits the representativeness and applicability of results, potentially reinforcing narrow perspectives on human behavior. Including diverse populations would enhance the relevance and fairness of such research, acknowledging cultural differences in social norms, obedience, and authority dynamics (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Incorporating diverse samples could also reveal variations in responses due to cultural backgrounds, potentially challenging assumptions made based on homogeneous groups. For example, research suggests that cultural differences influence obedience levels, with collectivist societies often exhibiting different compliance patterns than individualist cultures (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995). Hence, expanding the sample diversity would provide a more comprehensive understanding of social psychology phenomena while respecting cultural variability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s studies have profoundly influenced our understanding of obedience and social roles but at the cost of significant ethical breaches. Improvements aligned with contemporary ethical principles—such as informed consent, participant support, and inclusivity—are essential for conducting responsible research. Although stricter ethical standards may limit some insights, they promote a more humane approach to psychological investigation. Furthermore, diversifying research samples enhances the validity and cultural relevance of findings. Ethical research that respects participant rights and cultural diversity is fundamental to advancing psychology meaningfully and responsibly.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
• Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. (1995). Response styles and cross-cultural comparisons of mental health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(2), 204-229.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2012). When Prisoners Take Over the Prison: A Social Psychology of Resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(2), 154-179.
• Moseley, D. (2020). Ethical considerations in social psychology research. Journal of Social Psychology, 160(4), 445-459.
• Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2016). Theories of Personality (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall.