C3 Implications in the real world- Controversies
Introduction to Controversies
1. Identify and explain a study that was unethical, but you believe
has benefitted society.
Little Albert. This study was the most unethical in my opinion as it placed solely
one infant. Little Albert went through what we would consider as psychological
trauma, being conditioned with a metal pipe (which is a known fact that humans
fear loud noises but babies ears are highly more sensitive than adult so the bang
would have be magnified tenfold). They also forced him into dark rooms where
he could not see what was happening and continued to bang the metal pipe
behind him, holding him in place and conditioning him after 7 sessions to fear:
rats, rabbits, monkeys, Santa clause, monkeys, and fur anything (coats, hair, and
hats). He was forced into psychological trauma before the age of 1 and
continued when he was 13 months. Despite that, it has benefitted society as it
allowed for us to truly understand how our phobias are developed. By analysing
the study, we saw the progression of Albert’s fears develop overtime, leading to
us understanding, also, how many sessions/rounds of conditioning it takes to be
able to make it engrained into us. It eventually helped us develop phobia therapy
in the long-term, helping countless people.
2. Identify 2 different studies and explain how participants may
have been negatively impacted by the ethical issues that
arose.
Milgram (1961). Milgram’s study was conducted in Yale University with 40 men
from different occupations who did not have a criminal record and were law-
abiding citizens. Milgram collected them together to prove that the Germans
were not all evil and only did the deeds they did in World War 2 due to there
being an authority figure there. The participants thought it was a learning test
that was used with the confederate “Mr Wallis”. But they were deceived by the
researcher and forced to go through the shocking the student every time they
got an answer wrong, leading to deception that was not uncovered until the end
of the study. Once told, many were relieved that they participated but three
people had seizures during the study, some cried and some vomited due to the
psychological stress they were put under by being forced to “shock” the learner
into getting the answer correct. This means that it psychologically damaged
them, placing their brain in such a tense situation that it caused them to respond
with extreme actions during the study. Another ethical issue is that they did not
have the right to withdraw as they were prompted to continue the study by the
researcher each time they asked to stop, leading on 4 people to drop out.
Because they were not the authority figure, they believed that they must
continue with the study.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves. This study has fewer ethical issues than other studies that
have been studied but it still is not ethical as they used children under 18 for the
study. They were already going to the clinic which Bowlby was working at so he
thought that he could use them for his study. They did not consent themselves to
be a participant in the study, which was conducted on them in private, without
Introduction to Controversies
1. Identify and explain a study that was unethical, but you believe
has benefitted society.
Little Albert. This study was the most unethical in my opinion as it placed solely
one infant. Little Albert went through what we would consider as psychological
trauma, being conditioned with a metal pipe (which is a known fact that humans
fear loud noises but babies ears are highly more sensitive than adult so the bang
would have be magnified tenfold). They also forced him into dark rooms where
he could not see what was happening and continued to bang the metal pipe
behind him, holding him in place and conditioning him after 7 sessions to fear:
rats, rabbits, monkeys, Santa clause, monkeys, and fur anything (coats, hair, and
hats). He was forced into psychological trauma before the age of 1 and
continued when he was 13 months. Despite that, it has benefitted society as it
allowed for us to truly understand how our phobias are developed. By analysing
the study, we saw the progression of Albert’s fears develop overtime, leading to
us understanding, also, how many sessions/rounds of conditioning it takes to be
able to make it engrained into us. It eventually helped us develop phobia therapy
in the long-term, helping countless people.
2. Identify 2 different studies and explain how participants may
have been negatively impacted by the ethical issues that
arose.
Milgram (1961). Milgram’s study was conducted in Yale University with 40 men
from different occupations who did not have a criminal record and were law-
abiding citizens. Milgram collected them together to prove that the Germans
were not all evil and only did the deeds they did in World War 2 due to there
being an authority figure there. The participants thought it was a learning test
that was used with the confederate “Mr Wallis”. But they were deceived by the
researcher and forced to go through the shocking the student every time they
got an answer wrong, leading to deception that was not uncovered until the end
of the study. Once told, many were relieved that they participated but three
people had seizures during the study, some cried and some vomited due to the
psychological stress they were put under by being forced to “shock” the learner
into getting the answer correct. This means that it psychologically damaged
them, placing their brain in such a tense situation that it caused them to respond
with extreme actions during the study. Another ethical issue is that they did not
have the right to withdraw as they were prompted to continue the study by the
researcher each time they asked to stop, leading on 4 people to drop out.
Because they were not the authority figure, they believed that they must
continue with the study.
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves. This study has fewer ethical issues than other studies that
have been studied but it still is not ethical as they used children under 18 for the
study. They were already going to the clinic which Bowlby was working at so he
thought that he could use them for his study. They did not consent themselves to
be a participant in the study, which was conducted on them in private, without
