1.5: Ethical considerations Flashcards
Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had what suspended after his research was published?
Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published
Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
His work though was eventually ruled what?
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable
Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won a major award for it.
Maybe what upset people was not the abuse of ethics, but the upsetting results that went against the accepted ideas of free will and personal responsibility for one’s behaviour.
It was the work of Milgram and similar psychologists, like who, that helped to identify what?
It was the work of Milgram and similar psychologists, like Asch, that helped to identify the ethical issues that psychologists must consider when:
1. Planning
2. Conducting
research
Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won a major award for it.
Maybe what upset people was not the abuse of ethics, but the upsetting results that went against the accepted ideas of free will and personal responsibility for one’s behaviour.
It was the work of Milgram and similar psychologists, like Asch, that helped to identify the ethical issues that psychologists must consider when planning and conducting research.
Without these studies of social influence, there would not be what?
Without these studies of social influence, there would not be ethical:
- Codes
- Guidelines
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to what?
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by what?
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met who?
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received what?
A:
- Thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner
- Year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by what?
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where what?
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the:
1. Short-term damage (the stress reactions)
is outweighed by
2. Lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might do what?
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to do what directly after the experiment ended?
Milgram believed that:
- A debriefing might confound his results
- This was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected.
In fact, Milgram was surprised by what?
In fact, Milgram was surprised by the high obedience rate
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected.
In fact, Milgram was surprised by the high obedience rate.
Prior to the experiment, Milgram did what?
Prior to the experiment, Milgram asked 40 psychiatrists what percentage of people would obey up to 450 volts
Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected.
In fact, Milgram was surprised by the high obedience rate.
Prior to the experiment, Milgram asked 40 psychiatrists what percentage of people would obey up to 450 volts.
What was their prediction?
Their prediction was only 1% of the participants