Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
It is important to note that ethical considerations and principles play a critical role in the conduct of research as well as experiments. One such unethical example is the Milgram experiment or study, which involved three participants. The latter were experimenters, subjects, and fake test subjects (Milgram, 1963). The design was targeted to study the concept of obedience to authority in order to observe how far subjects are willing to harm another human being under pressure from an authoritative figure. In other words, the experimenter pressured the subjects to continue inflicting harm through shocks on the fake subjects.
The experiment crossed three major ethical lines, and the first one was the deception of participants. Subjects were deceived that they were the ones administering the shocks on fake test subjects. The experimenter did not provide a fully informed clarification of the purpose of the research since the subjects were not aware that they were the prime targets of interest rather than fake test subjects. The second unethical element was the fact that there was no withdrawal allowed because the design was to pressure subjects on the continuation of shock administration. The experiment was inherently designed in order to force subjects to continue since the goal was to observe the significance and extent of authoritative pressure on human behavior and obedience. The third unethical component is manifested in the lack of proper protection for participants since they were put under significant stress. It is evident that subjects were under severe stress from being forced to harm fake test subjects. Therefore, the ethical issues include deception, the lack of safety, and the lack of withdrawal.
Firstly, in the case of the unethical element of deception, the fifth principle of ASPA’s Code of Ethics was violated. It states: “Fully Inform and Advise. Provide accurate, honest, comprehensive, and timely information and advice to elected and appointed officials and governing board members, and to staff members in your organization” (ASPA, 2022, para. 8). In other words; subjects should have been informed about the goal and purpose of the research. Since the experiment required subjects to be unaware that there are the prime targets of research interest, the research design was unethical from the beginning. At the very least, the experimenter needed to provide as much information as possible.
Secondly, in the case of the unethical element of the lack of withdrawal, the third principle of ASPA’s Code of Ethics was violated. It states: “Promote democratic participation. Inform the public and encourage active engagement in governance. Be open, transparent and responsive, and respect and assist all persons in their dealings with public organizations” (ASPA, 2022, para. 6). In other words, the experimenter did not provide the required assistance and help to the subjects since they were pressured to continue the shock administration despite the fact that they did not desire to do so. Once again, the experiment was designed unethically from the start because it required the application of pressure on the basis of authority.
Thirdly, in the case of the unethical element of the lack of protection, the fourth principle of ASPA’s Code of Ethics was violated. It states: “Strengthen social equity. Treat all persons with fairness, justice, and equality and respect individual differences, rights, and freedoms. Promote affirmative action and other initiatives to reduce unfairness, injustice, and inequality in society” (ASPA, 2022, para. 7). In other words, the subjects were put under severe stress in order to force them to continuously shock the fake test subject. Such pressure can be considered disrespectful to the dignity and rights of the participants.
For the element of informing participants, the experiment should have considered situational features of the design. It is stated that “the four features are the incremental nature of the task, the novelty of the situation and the kind of normative information made available, the opportunity to deny or diffuse responsibility, and the limited opportunity to ponder decisions” (Burger, 2014, p. 489). By fully informing participants, the researchers would have eliminated an error factor of situation novelty and observed the obedience factor ethically and accurately.
In the case of withdrawal, the experiment could have been more ethical by allowing a participant to stop the administration at any time, which would have given more precise information on obedience by choice and coercion. It is stated that “the paper concludes that what the experimental findings represented was not so much obedience out of choice, but out of coercion” (Kaposi, 2017). For the last violation, the experimenter needed to make the environment less hostile, such as changing the shock penalty to milder alternatives. It is important for a researcher to respect human dignity and rights (Guthrie, 2010). Therefore, a design with less severe punishment would have given results without significant pressure and disrespect for the participants. It is evident that the topic of obedience might be difficult to study, but there are possible means of research that do not violate fundamental ethical standards.
References
ASPA. (2022). Code of Ethics.The American Society for Public Administration. Web.
Burger, J. M. (2014). Situational features in Milgram’s experiment kept his participants shocked.Journal of Social Issues, 70(3), 489-500. Web.
Guthrie, G. (2010). Basic research methods: An entry to social science research. SAGE Publications.
Kaposi, D. (2017). The resistance experiments: Morality, authority and obedience in Stanley Milgram’s account. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 47(4), 382-401. Web.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.