Effects on Current Research
Stanley Milgram's Experiment
How do the study’s ethical problems affect researchers now?
Milgram’s experiment was deemed unethical because of the amount of stress participants felt during the test, and the experimenter urged participants to continue even when they wanted to quit. The treatment of human participants came to light after Milgram’s experiment, causing the APA to change the way they are treated. In an article by Thomas Blass (2009), the author states that “in 1973, the American Psychological Association published its first comprehensive ethical principles for research with human participants," (p. 43). Blass (2009) goes on to explain that eventually the laws changed to require any research involving humans go through a review board. This means that any researcher looking to experiment with human participants would need to be approved through a review board before the experiment could begin. In the article “Replicating Milgram,” Arthur Miller (2009) explains that few researchers have attempted to replicate Milgram’s experiment due to ethical concerns. He goes on to explain that the APA “stipulated, unequivocally, that a participant’s wish to withdraw from participation in research must be respected and that his freedom must be clearly communicated prior to the study," (p. 20). This concept went against how Milgram treated his participants. Therefore, the changes made involving the treatment of participants affects how researchers must conduct experiments today.
What were the results of exposing the studies problems?
Milgram’s experiment was based on the notion that participants would inflict harm on another person with the urging of an authority figure. Based on this hypothesis, participants had to be oblivious to the fact that the shocks were a ruse. However, the experiment caused many participants to experience unnecessary stress and were therefore deemed unethical. These problems were exposed and caused the APA to change the guidelines on how experiments with human participants could be carried out. According to Blass (2009), the APA now requires that experiments go through a review board, and participants are allowed to withdraw when they want (p.20). Due to these changes, current researchers would be unable to replicate Milgram’s experiment in its entirety. Now, researchers must abide by the following guidelines when conducting an experiment with human participants.
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. (2002). American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-73.
Principles from the APA Code of Conduct:
3.04 Avoiding Harm:"(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. (b) Psychologists do not participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in torture, defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, or in any other cruel, inhuman, or degrading behavior that violates 3.04a."
3.10 Informed Consent: (a) When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. (b) For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual's assent, (3) consider such persons' preferences and best interests, and (4) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted or required by law. When consent by a legally authorized person is not permitted or required by law, psychologists take reasonable steps to protect the individual's rights and welfare. (c) When psychological services are court ordered or otherwise mandated, psychologists inform the individual of the nature of the anticipated services, including whether the services are court ordered or mandated and any limits of confidentiality, before proceeding. (d) Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent.
8.02 Informed Consent to Research: "(a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about: (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects"
8.07 Deception in Research: "(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective non-deceptive alternative procedures are not feasible. (b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress. (c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data."
10.10 Terminating Therapy: (a) Psychologists terminate therapy when it becomes reasonably clear that the client/patient no longer needs the service, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by continued service. (b) Psychologists may terminate therapy when threatened or otherwise endangered by the client/patient or another person with whom the client/patient has a relationship. (c) Except where precluded by the actions of clients/patients or third-party payors, prior to termination psychologists provide pretermination counseling and suggest alternative service providers as appropriate.
Could this study be revised to be conducted ethically? If so, how? If not, why not?
Due to the changes the APA made to the ethical treatment of human participants, Milgram’s experiment could not be replicated in its entirety. The experiment relied on the fact that participants were unaware they were not actually causing harm to another. However, attempts have been made to replicate the experiment but with amendments to reflect the ethical principles explained in the APA guidelines. A researcher named Jerry M. Burger conducted a Milgram replication. Burger (2009) studied Milgram’s findings and found that “the 150-volt switch is something of a point of no return," (p. 2). This finding inspired Burger to replicate Milgram’s experiment, but his experiment only went to 150 volts. Burger explained that due to Milgram’s experiment, one could infer that if a participant made it to 150-volts, they would make it to 450 volts. This makes the 450-volt experiment unnecessary. Burger also had to build in many safeguards to be able to replicate the experiment. Burger (2009) used a screening process to select participants, informed participants several times they could withdraw at any time, and made sure the experimenter was a “clinical psychologist who was instructed to end the study immediately if he saw any signs of excessive stress," (p. 2). Through his experiment, Burger (2009) found that “average Americans react to this laboratory situation today much the way they did 45 years ago," (p. 9). Although we may never be able to conduct an experiment exactly the way Milgram did, his experiment sheds light on how humans can behave in appalling ways when listening to an authority figure.