Milgram's Obedience Tests (1963) - ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Ethical Issues are:

1. Psychological Harm

2. Deception / Informed Consent

3. Right to Withdraw

4. Inducement to Take Part

PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM - THE CASE FOR:

• Levels of stress suffered by volunteers supported by extreme physical reax many exhibited.  3 suffered seizures. Milgram continued for "the sake of science".
• Perry (2012) claimed de-briefing of subsequent participants (nearly 3,000) didn't always occur.  Concern study would become common knowledge and that debriefing would confound results.
• Baumrind (1964) said Milgram abused his participants rights and feelings e.g. lots of devious touches inc. the learner stating the heart condition, the drawing of lots (completely fake). Many participants could hardly avoid the conclusion that they too could have carried out Hitler's orders.  Knowledge most of us never have to live with.

PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM - THE CASE AGAINST:

• Only 2% had any regrets about involvment.  74% learned something about themselves.  Thorough debriefing was carried out with unharmed learner.  A year later all 40 participants recieved psychiatric assessments - none showed any signs of long term damage.
• Baumrind's criticism of the experiment assumes that the outcome was EXPECTED and that Milgram knowingly put his participants through high stress BUT Milgram was astounded by the high obedience rate.  Milgram conducted a survey with his peers and students prior to the study and they predicted that only 1% of people would obey up to 450v.

DECEPTION / INFORMED CONSENT - THE CASE FOR:

• Study is riddled with deception from the ad participants responded to (study of memory and learning); the use of confederates; the false drawing of lots; the learner's heart condition; the false electric shocks and cries of help/pain from the learner.  The whole scenario was fake.  Participants could not give informed consent since they volunteered without knowing the true purpose.

DECEPTION / INFORMED CONSENT - THE CASE AGAINST:

• Milgram defended his use of deception by debriefing his participants.
• Deception was necessary for realistic behaviour.  Participants needed to believe they were real shocks, otherwise results could not be generalised to real-life situations.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW - THE CASE FOR:

• No explicit right to withdraw was given to participants before the study commenced.  
• Participants attempts to withdraw are met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue.
• Don't know how many refused to take part when they knew they had to give electric shocks. It's possible that the experiment encouraged people with Authoritarian Personality to take part in the first place.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW - THE CASE AGAINST:

• Milgram argued that participants DID have right to withdraw as 35% of them excercised that right and refused to continue.

INDUCEMENT TO TAKE PART - THE CASE FOR:

• Volunteers were paid $4 (plus 50 cents car fare), may have led them to believe they had to finish the study i.e. give the shocks in order to recieve the money.

INDUCEMENT TO TAKE PART - THE CASE AGAINST:

• Ad stated monies would be paid upon arrival and no participant ever claimed they thought they had to obey to get paid.