Issues in Milgram’s research –
1. Right to withdraw – some participants find it hard to withdraw because they were
being ordered by the experimenter to continue giving electric shocks.
2. Informed consent – the participants could not give their fully informed because they
did not know what the procedure would involve. This is because several aspects of
the procedure were either withheld from them or misrepresented to them.
3. Deception - The participants were deceived because the allocation of roles was fixed,
the electric shocks were fake, Mr. Wallace was a confederate and not a genuine
participant.
4. Protecting participants - Most participants experienced some anxiety, and some
experienced a great deal. In fact, this was one of Milgram's arguments for the
validity of his procedure – that the participants believed it was real. So the
procedure was at least potentially psychologically harmful.
How did Milgram deal with the issues?
Right to withdraw – it is not clear that Milgram did anything to address this
issue. He may have hoped that debriefing would be enough to overcome any
negative consequences associated with continuing. He might also have argued
that the fact some participants did withdraw (disobey) indicates that all of them
could have done the same. But neither of these is a substitute for dealing with
the issue.
Informed consent - It could be argued that consent does not have to be fully
informed. Otherwise, many psychological studies would be impossible because
they rely on the participants being unaware of what is really happening. But this
should only occur when other options are not possible, and when the
consequences are not serious. This wasn't the case in Milgram's procedure
because many participants were visibly stressed and anxious.
Deception - Milgram relied on debriefing after the procedure was over to justify
his procedure ethically. The evidence suggests that debriefing was thorough and
followed up over an extended period for some participants (e.g., those who
needed counselling).
Protecting participants - Milgram’s apparent lack of concern for his participants’
welfare was justified by the debriefing. He argued that most participants left the
situation displaying no signs of harm. Those who needed further intervention got
it.
How successful was he?
Right to withdraw – Participants should be told before the procedure begins that they can
leave at any time, which Milgram failed to do.
Informed consent – Milgram argued that debriefing was enough to compensate for lack of
informed consent. He also pointed to the follow-up questionnaire which showed that 84%
of participants said they were ‘glad’ they had taken part.
Deception – Milgram’s argument was that his participant suffered no lasting damage, which
justified the deception. Again, the follow-up questionnaire showed that most participants
found the experience valuable.
1. Right to withdraw – some participants find it hard to withdraw because they were
being ordered by the experimenter to continue giving electric shocks.
2. Informed consent – the participants could not give their fully informed because they
did not know what the procedure would involve. This is because several aspects of
the procedure were either withheld from them or misrepresented to them.
3. Deception - The participants were deceived because the allocation of roles was fixed,
the electric shocks were fake, Mr. Wallace was a confederate and not a genuine
participant.
4. Protecting participants - Most participants experienced some anxiety, and some
experienced a great deal. In fact, this was one of Milgram's arguments for the
validity of his procedure – that the participants believed it was real. So the
procedure was at least potentially psychologically harmful.
How did Milgram deal with the issues?
Right to withdraw – it is not clear that Milgram did anything to address this
issue. He may have hoped that debriefing would be enough to overcome any
negative consequences associated with continuing. He might also have argued
that the fact some participants did withdraw (disobey) indicates that all of them
could have done the same. But neither of these is a substitute for dealing with
the issue.
Informed consent - It could be argued that consent does not have to be fully
informed. Otherwise, many psychological studies would be impossible because
they rely on the participants being unaware of what is really happening. But this
should only occur when other options are not possible, and when the
consequences are not serious. This wasn't the case in Milgram's procedure
because many participants were visibly stressed and anxious.
Deception - Milgram relied on debriefing after the procedure was over to justify
his procedure ethically. The evidence suggests that debriefing was thorough and
followed up over an extended period for some participants (e.g., those who
needed counselling).
Protecting participants - Milgram’s apparent lack of concern for his participants’
welfare was justified by the debriefing. He argued that most participants left the
situation displaying no signs of harm. Those who needed further intervention got
it.
How successful was he?
Right to withdraw – Participants should be told before the procedure begins that they can
leave at any time, which Milgram failed to do.
Informed consent – Milgram argued that debriefing was enough to compensate for lack of
informed consent. He also pointed to the follow-up questionnaire which showed that 84%
of participants said they were ‘glad’ they had taken part.
Deception – Milgram’s argument was that his participant suffered no lasting damage, which
justified the deception. Again, the follow-up questionnaire showed that most participants
found the experience valuable.
