BHS350 Ethics in Research Paper (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Grand Canyon University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
350
Subject
Health Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by JonicaMann
Ethics in Research Paper
Jonica Mann
College of Humanities and Social Science, Grand Canyon University
BHS-350: Report Writing, Research, and Information Literacy in Behavioral Health
Robert Gregory
August 27, 2023
1
Introduction
Research in mental health is necessary to support new findings, validate or refute existing
concepts, and identify new outcomes. For years, scientists conducted tests while others contributed to the advancement of the discipline. Even though some of the research was criticized for being unethical, all of it was informative. The Code of Ethics is in place to protect the ethical standards that researchers must adhere to when doing their research. This paper will provide a summary of The Standford Prison Experiment and The Milgram Study along with their
ethics violations. Standford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by a psychologist by the name of
Philip Zimbardo. The major goal of this study was to determine if the alleged acts of cruelty by prison guards in American prisons were caused by their violent dispositions or more likely stemmed from the conditions inside the prison (Bartels, 2019). In the renowned Stanford prison experiment, Zimbardo and his colleagues assigned 21 college-aged men randomly to act as guards or prisoners in a simulated prison setting. Tensions between guards and prisoners emerged
by the second day and intensified until the study's early termination on day six. The researchers linked abusive conduct among some guards and mental breakdowns among prisoners to situational factors, including the significant power imbalance inherent in their roles. Haney posited that guard aggression stemmed from the role's uniform and associated authority. Yet, critics challenged this view, questioning the study's methodology and theoretical foundation. In 2001, Reicher and Haslam conducted the BBC prison study, resembling the Stanford experiment but with differences. They integrated social identity theory and found that group identification influenced role adoption. Unlike the Stanford trial, BBC guards were not abusive, and prisoners 2
became increasingly resistant. This suggested that role adoption wasn't automatic but depended on group identification. In contrast to Reicher and Haslam's approach, the Stanford study encouraged guard identification, potentially causing distinct behaviors. The guard orientation in the Stanford experiment might have produced demand characteristics, accounting for the behavioral contrast between the two studies. The absence of explicit guard behavior instructions in the BBC study further accentuated these differences. Milgram Study
The Milgram Study, conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961, aimed to explore the willingness of participants to obey authority figures even when their actions caused harm to others. Due to the widespread belief that the Nazi atrocities during World War II were the result of Germans' unique subservience to authority, Milgram sought to determine whether this belief was true (McLeod, 2023). By placing an advertisement in the newspaper seeking male subjects for research on learning at Yale University, Milgram was able to find participants for his experiment (McLeod, 2023). Participants were led to believe they were administering increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner who was a confederate, whenever the learner answered questions incorrectly (McLeod, 2023). The shocks were not real, but the participants were not aware of this fact. The study found that a significant portion of participants were willing
to administer potentially lethal shocks under the influence of the experimenter's authority.
ACA Code of Ethics Violated
Both the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Obedience Study are infamous for
their ethical violations and the harm inflicted upon participants. They have contributed significantly to the development of modern ethical guidelines for conducting psychological research, emphasizing the importance of informed consent, minimizing harm, and maintaining 3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
the well-being of participants. The Stanford Prison Experiment had many ethics violations including Informed Consent (APA Code 8.02): Participants did not provide fully informed and voluntary consent (American Counseling Association, 2014). They were not adequately informed
about the potential risks and consequences of the study, leading to unforeseen psychological harm (American Counseling Association, 2014). Deception (APA Code 8.07): The participants were deceived about the nature of the study and the extent of their roles. This deception contributed to their emotional distress and suffering (American Counseling Association, 2014). Harm and Distress (APA Code 8.05): The experiment caused severe emotional distress and harm to the participants (American Counseling Association, 2014). Many experienced psychological traumas because of the abusive conditions. The Milgram Study also had several ethics violations including Informed Consent (APA Code 8.02): Participants were deceived about the nature of the study, particularly regarding the true harm being inflicted on the learner (American Counseling Association, 2014). This lack of informed consent compromised their ability to make an informed decision about their participation. Deception (APA Code 8.07): Participants were misled about the purpose of the study and the actual consequences of their actions, which caused psychological distress and confusion (American Counseling Association, 2014). Harm and Distress (APA Code 8.05): The participants experienced significant emotional distress, as they believed they were causing harm to another person (American Counseling Association, 2014). This distress was not adequately mitigated during or after the study.
Conclusion
All things considered; it can be claimed that both trials were conducted unethically. Despite being a regular practice, this had a negative impact on lives. The procedure of informed 4
consent for treatment and research exists currently, which is a blessing. The ACA Code of Ethics provides protection for both the researcher and the participants and has contributed to a decrease in human rights violations. 5
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA Code of Ethics. https://www.counseling.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2014-code-of-
ethics-finaladdressc97d33f16116603abcacff0000bee5e7.pdf?sfvrsn=5d6b532c_6
Bartels, J. (2019). Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment, again: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation. Journal of Social Psychology, 159(6), 780–790.
McLeod. (2023, July 20). Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics. Retrieved August 27, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html.
6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help