Latane And Darley's Ethical Theory
Are these studies ethical?
This essay argues that the two studies done by Latané and Darley (1968) “group Inhabitation of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies” and Darley and Latané (1968) “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of responsibity” are unethical. These studies are unethical because they break ethical principles. There are three main ethical principles that the researchers have broken in the two studies. Which were fidelity, respect for persons and nonmaleficence. Ethical principles are important for researchers to follow because it gives participants the right to make their own decisions. It is also important so participants cannot be harmed in experiments. Lastly, it is important so participants do not lose respect …show more content…
for the researchers. Kitchener and Kitchener (2009) refer to these principles in the handbook of social research ethics. These ethical principles are going to be discussed and defined in the paragraphs below.
The first ethical principle that the researchers broke was fidelity.
Fidelity is defined by Kitchener and Kitchener as the trusting relationship between the social science researchers and the research participants. In the first study by Latané and Darley, the researches lied to the participants about the real reason they were there. The participants were told that they would be interviewed to discuss the problems they have with life at university. The researchers were not honest to the participants about what was happening or going to happen in the interview. They were actually going to participate in the study. In the second study completed by Darley and Latané, the researchers did the same thing that happened in the first study. These participants were contacted and were told they must participate in an unnamed experiment because it was a course requirement, which was a lie. In addition, they said that the microphones would be turned off while each participant took a turn to talk. The participants were told that they were in groups but in different rooms but that were not true. All the voices they heard were actually pre-recorded voices, not real people …show more content…
talking.
The second ethical principle that was broken by the researchers is nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence is defined by Kitchener and Kitchener as not causing harm to other people. For the first study, researchers introduce smoke in the room where the experiment was taking place. They did not warn the participants about the smoke. According to Latané and Darley, the smoke they used in the experiment was titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide can cause cancer according to the Canadian centre for occupational Health and Safety (2013). It can also cause slight irritation to your eyes. The smoke could have been dangerous and some of the participants could have been allergic to it. The second study has clear evidence on how the participants were psychologically stress with the situation they were put in. According to Darley and Latane, some of the participants showed physical signs of nervousness and they often had trembling hands and sweating palms. This indicates that the participants went through psychological stress.
The third ethical principle that the researchers broke was respect for persons.
Respect for persons is defined by Kitchener and Kitchener as the fact that every person deserves the right to make their own choices and decisions as long as it does not affect others. The researchers did not give the participants the freedom to make their own decisions. The participants felt like they had no choice but to do what they were told to do. In the second study, the researchers did not give the participants the chance to make the decision on whether they should participate in the experiment or not. Darley and Latané show that the participants had to do the experiment because it was a course requirement and that they will be marked on it. This shows that the participants did not get the respect they need because they were pressured to do what they did not intend to do by
themselves.
In conclusion, this essay discussed why the two studies done by Latané and Darley (1968); Darley and Latané (1968) are unethical. These two studies are unethical because they break three main ethical principles, which are fidelity, respect for persons and nonmaleficence. For example, fidelity is defined as a trusting relationship between the social science researchers and the research participants. These ethical principles were broken by being unfaithful and unfair to the participants which caused harm to some of them and participants were psychologically stress with the situation they were put in.
Reference list
Canadian centre of occupational health and safety. (2013). Titanium dioxide. Retrieved from: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/titanium_dioxide.html
Darley, J.M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander Intervention in Emergency: journal of Personality and social psychology, 8(4), 377-383
Latané,B. , & Darley,J.M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies: Journal of personality and social psychology, 10(3), 215-221.
Kitchener, K.S., & Kitchener, R.F. (2009). Social Science Research Ethics: Historical and Philosophical issues. The Handbook of Social research ethics, ch1, 5-22.
This essay argues that the two studies done by Latané and Darley (1968) “group Inhabitation of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies” and Darley and Latané (1968) “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of responsibity” are unethical. These studies are unethical because they break ethical principles. There are three main ethical principles that the researchers have broken in the two studies. Which were fidelity, respect for persons and nonmaleficence. Ethical principles are important for researchers to follow because it gives participants the right to make their own decisions. It is also important so participants cannot be harmed in experiments. Lastly, it is important so participants do not lose respect …show more content…
for the researchers. Kitchener and Kitchener (2009) refer to these principles in the handbook of social research ethics. These ethical principles are going to be discussed and defined in the paragraphs below.
The first ethical principle that the researchers broke was fidelity.
Fidelity is defined by Kitchener and Kitchener as the trusting relationship between the social science researchers and the research participants. In the first study by Latané and Darley, the researches lied to the participants about the real reason they were there. The participants were told that they would be interviewed to discuss the problems they have with life at university. The researchers were not honest to the participants about what was happening or going to happen in the interview. They were actually going to participate in the study. In the second study completed by Darley and Latané, the researchers did the same thing that happened in the first study. These participants were contacted and were told they must participate in an unnamed experiment because it was a course requirement, which was a lie. In addition, they said that the microphones would be turned off while each participant took a turn to talk. The participants were told that they were in groups but in different rooms but that were not true. All the voices they heard were actually pre-recorded voices, not real people …show more content…
talking.
The second ethical principle that was broken by the researchers is nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence is defined by Kitchener and Kitchener as not causing harm to other people. For the first study, researchers introduce smoke in the room where the experiment was taking place. They did not warn the participants about the smoke. According to Latané and Darley, the smoke they used in the experiment was titanium dioxide. Titanium dioxide can cause cancer according to the Canadian centre for occupational Health and Safety (2013). It can also cause slight irritation to your eyes. The smoke could have been dangerous and some of the participants could have been allergic to it. The second study has clear evidence on how the participants were psychologically stress with the situation they were put in. According to Darley and Latane, some of the participants showed physical signs of nervousness and they often had trembling hands and sweating palms. This indicates that the participants went through psychological stress.
The third ethical principle that the researchers broke was respect for persons.
Respect for persons is defined by Kitchener and Kitchener as the fact that every person deserves the right to make their own choices and decisions as long as it does not affect others. The researchers did not give the participants the freedom to make their own decisions. The participants felt like they had no choice but to do what they were told to do. In the second study, the researchers did not give the participants the chance to make the decision on whether they should participate in the experiment or not. Darley and Latané show that the participants had to do the experiment because it was a course requirement and that they will be marked on it. This shows that the participants did not get the respect they need because they were pressured to do what they did not intend to do by
themselves.
In conclusion, this essay discussed why the two studies done by Latané and Darley (1968); Darley and Latané (1968) are unethical. These two studies are unethical because they break three main ethical principles, which are fidelity, respect for persons and nonmaleficence. For example, fidelity is defined as a trusting relationship between the social science researchers and the research participants. These ethical principles were broken by being unfaithful and unfair to the participants which caused harm to some of them and participants were psychologically stress with the situation they were put in.
Reference list
Canadian centre of occupational health and safety. (2013). Titanium dioxide. Retrieved from: http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/titanium_dioxide.html
Darley, J.M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander Intervention in Emergency: journal of Personality and social psychology, 8(4), 377-383
Latané,B. , & Darley,J.M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies: Journal of personality and social psychology, 10(3), 215-221.
Kitchener, K.S., & Kitchener, R.F. (2009). Social Science Research Ethics: Historical and Philosophical issues. The Handbook of Social research ethics, ch1, 5-22.