Miss
Critically consider the balance of scientific benefits against ethical costs in psychology (22)
Milgram’s obedience study
Milgram’s research has a lasting impact on psychology in various ways, initially as it triggered a large number of subsequent studies which is a desirable factor of the scientific method as replications demonstrate reliability and enhance our understanding, additionally the findings were counter- intuitive meaning that the findings weren’t equal to the predictions. The initial interviews indicated that people would not be willing to obey unjust orders controversially the findings illustrated the importance of situational factors. Mandel (1998) criticised Milgram’s research, he pointed to a real life study of a group of German policemen during the holocaust who behaved quite differently. Being physically close to their victims didn’t cause them to disobey. Mandel goes on to say that Milgram provided an obedience alibi and in real life people obey for different reasons, for example in the case of the holocaust, being prejudice against Jews. This questions the real benefits of Milgram’s study as it does not seem to represent real life circumstance.
The latter study is also criticised over raising many ethical issues, such as the right to withdraw, deception and psychological harm to participants. Many anxious/ distressing behavioural signs were observed throughout the study, for example sweating, biting nails, trembling stuttering, biting lips, groaning and digging fingernails into own flesh. Despite the symptoms expressed by participants the researchers manipulated the right to withdraw by making it very difficult to leave by making comments such as ‘the experiment requires you continue’, ‘you have no other choice but to continue ‘or ‘it is essential that you continue’. In defence Milgram claimed that he did not know, prior to the study, that such high levels of distress would be induced. He also fully debriefed participants post study and
Milgram’s obedience study
Milgram’s research has a lasting impact on psychology in various ways, initially as it triggered a large number of subsequent studies which is a desirable factor of the scientific method as replications demonstrate reliability and enhance our understanding, additionally the findings were counter- intuitive meaning that the findings weren’t equal to the predictions. The initial interviews indicated that people would not be willing to obey unjust orders controversially the findings illustrated the importance of situational factors. Mandel (1998) criticised Milgram’s research, he pointed to a real life study of a group of German policemen during the holocaust who behaved quite differently. Being physically close to their victims didn’t cause them to disobey. Mandel goes on to say that Milgram provided an obedience alibi and in real life people obey for different reasons, for example in the case of the holocaust, being prejudice against Jews. This questions the real benefits of Milgram’s study as it does not seem to represent real life circumstance.
The latter study is also criticised over raising many ethical issues, such as the right to withdraw, deception and psychological harm to participants. Many anxious/ distressing behavioural signs were observed throughout the study, for example sweating, biting nails, trembling stuttering, biting lips, groaning and digging fingernails into own flesh. Despite the symptoms expressed by participants the researchers manipulated the right to withdraw by making it very difficult to leave by making comments such as ‘the experiment requires you continue’, ‘you have no other choice but to continue ‘or ‘it is essential that you continue’. In defence Milgram claimed that he did not know, prior to the study, that such high levels of distress would be induced. He also fully debriefed participants post study and