Ethics in Social Psychology - Research Paper Example

? Ethics in Social Psychology Research s From the principle of ethics, any research performed should result to positive outcomes. For example, it should result to understanding and fulfillment of individual’s welfare and pleasure. Therefore, an ethical research should not contradict the desires of an individual. The paper’s purpose is to analyze the consequences and disadvantages of the use of deception in research basing on the Stanford Prison Experiment. Introduction In 1971, Philip Zimbardo, a renowned psychologist in conjunction with his colleagues carried out an experiment with the objective of finding out the effects of an individual becoming a prison guard or prisoner (Cherry, 2012). Zimbardo being Stanley Migram previous classmate developed an interest of expounding on his former classmate research. His main objective was to investigate further the variables that are situational on the behavior of human. When conducting his research, a mock prison was set up by him. Its basement was situated at the psychology building of Stanford University. Under his study, he randomly selected undergraduate students twenty four in number. They were supposed to play the prisoners and guard role. All the twenty four participants were chosen from a collection of seventy (70) volunteers. The reason for the action was because; they never possessed a criminal background, neither did they have psychological problems nor medical conditions that were major. The most amazing thing about the experiment was the agreed terms and conditions of volunteers being paid $15 per day in exchange for their participation in the experiment for a period of one to two weeks. The experiment (Stanford Prison Experiment) was supposed to take a period of fourteen days. However, it was put to a halt after six days. The reason being, the conditions to which the volunteers (students’ participants) were subjected to were very hostile. For instance, those who took the role of prison guard became remarkably abusive and those in the role of prisoners continued to exhibit extreme signs of anxiety and stress. In the experiment, the guard and prisoners were given the mandate to interact freely. On the contrary, this never yielded any results as their existed hostility and dehumanization in the interaction process. The guards behaved abusively and aggressively towards the inmates. The inmate remained depressed and inactive. This resulted top some inmates experiencing negative severe emotions such as shedding of tears and anxieties that were acute resulting to their early removal from the study. Zimbardo, himself acting as a prison warden, ignored the prison guards’ abusive behavior until an objection was raised by Christina Maslach, a graduate student. Her objection was as a result of the prevailing circumstances in the virtual prison and continued morality of the experiment. From the outcomes of the experiment it was evident that, situation plays a role that is crucial in determining the behavior of human. The guard being in a powerful position humiliated the junior ones. This is a situation that is normal in an individual’s life. Consequences and Advantages of Utilizing Deception In Research In recent years, ethical approaches have not yielded any results in curbing deception in researches. Various actions have been taken into consideration but nothing much has changed. These actions are such as the development and codification of ethical reviews that are professional (Kimmel et al., 2010). Deception in research has been conceived to be a practice that is pervasive and has generated a debate that is contentious in behavioral sciences. Research decisions and methodologies associated with it are bound inextricably with considerations that are ethical. This has been a fact established from self-reflection process within the disciplines of behavioral science. The pendulum of ethics has been unstable for human behavior investigators. Dimensions of ethics present researchers with varied challenges. This is for those researchers already overwhelmed by the constrained methodology inbuilt in responsive human beings study. Despite the increased protections availed to participants in research, current ethical regulations developments have made the conduction of research to be very complex. Ethical guidelines coupled with government regulations have forced investigators to weigh their requirements such as ethical and methodological requirements. This will enable them to decide on how to go about various research questions. The relationship between ethics and methodology is not apparent than research purposes deception case whose ethical issues have triggered contentious debates. Incase deception procedure are utilized in researches that involves human participant, they are always scrutinized vigorously within the discipline. The use of deceptive procedures should be backed up by justifiable methodological research investigation objectives. In such a case, the harm that may occur to the participants should be identified and addressed. In addition to that, there general application should be conventional to the guidelines that are professional, legal strictures and oversight board reviews (Lawson, 2001). The applicability of deception in research has been disregarded seriously in the morals of philosophy. As an effort done intentionally to misinform, the moral deception justifiability has become an inquiry of critical significance. Deceit has been perceived as a means of making individuals to perform duties against their will and a rationale that is common for mistrust. In order to reduce the demand attributes and the guessing of hypotheses, researchers do mask their investigations. This is because of their need to hide some pertinent information to their participants for purposes of meeting the objectives of the research. Arguably, research deception should be permissible ethically. This should be done under various conditions. For instance, the deception should be in line with certain principles in relation to how cheating is handled in life. Harmless in nature, white lies are allowed when conducting research. Lying in order to prevent harm from occurring is also allowed. On the other hand, it is vital for individuals to justify their utilization of lies in various situations. Psychologists are bound to utilize deceptions that are severe in nature. Severe deceptions results to the creation of negative impacts during and after research participation. These negative impacts can be such as anxiety and upsets resulting from a decreased self image (Smith et al., 2009). Advantages of Utilizing Deception in Research Deception increases the laboratory setting impacts by the researcher. This makes the situation of the experiment to be more practical. This results to improved internal validity of the study. In addition to that, deception decreases the motives and playing role behavior effects of participants in the situation of an experiment. Moreover, certain areas that are crucial to human life cannot be studied experimentally in a manner that is ethical. Therefore, deception utilization helps in bringing out clearly the topics meaning without compromising participants’ lives or desired outcomes of the research. Deception negative impacts such as embarrassment reduced self esteem and guilt can be minimized via intensive participant pre-screening. Alternatively, it can be performed through the careful conduction of debriefing a post-experimental procedure. Finally individuals who participate in researches that are deceptive in nature, provides them with a learning experience that is involving. This therefore, highlights their colleagues or their own behaviors and understands the research process as a whole. Consequences of Utilizing Deception in Research Use of deception undermines the basic rights of an individual. Despite the research consequences that are anticipated in nature, it is quite unethical to intentionally mislead the participants while conducting a research. The research participants need to know all the information concerning the research. Hiding the truth from them undermines the existing relationship between the participants of the research and researcher himself. Use of procedures that are deceptive in nature might be harmful to participants in the research. As a result their self esteem gets lowered and their relationship with other is always impaired. In addition to that, participants in a deceptive research are often subjected to roles that are powerless in the context of the research. This consequently results to shaping an attitude that is negative towards any participation in the research. Moreover, utilization of deception triggers an increase in suspicion thus affecting future participants in research. These broadens the gap between the between the investigators and the participants and the research process itself. Techniques that are deceptive reduce social scientists publics’ trust. These eventually results to poor repetitions among the research professionals. These significantly endanger their research enterprise financial and community support and expert authorities’ public trust. Evaluating How the Stanford Prison Study Findings Would Be Different If Deception Had Not Been Used At All If deception had not been used in Zimbardo’s research, then the research outcomes could not be termed as being valid. This is because they could not bring out clearly what the situation in the prison is like. Prisoners could be seen interacting freely with guards and this is not always the case in the prisons. Therefore, according to my own point of view, Zimbardo’s type of research should be encouraged as they help to bring out the real situations happening in the world. From the experiment, it was true that power can change the behavior of an individual. The guard abused and oppressed the prisoners as they were under their authority and defenseless. The prisoners played a passive role in the experiment. Summary of how the current APA Ethical Standard Apply to Zimbardo Prison Study and the use of Deception in Social Psychological Research As a researcher code model of conduct, the present APA (American Psychological Association) ethical standards are due to fifty years (50yrs) development and revision history. The development and revisions included the significant research intensification guidelines. This was possible due to contentious issues resulting from the use of deception in conducting research. The research guiding principle emphasizes on participation that is voluntarily and a consent that is informed. This is one of the requirements that is fundamental for researches composed of human beings participant. According to the APA code(2002, 2010) present version, 8.07 ethical standards puts across that, research deception should be utilized under the following circumstances: If alternative procedures that are non-deceptive or effective are not practicable enough, If the research being conducted will not result to physical pains or emotional distress that are severe, if integral deception features of the design of the study are acknowledged by the participants before the beginning of the research process and lastly if the outcome of the studies are of any significance. The institution approval standard 8.01, acknowledges that, research investigators should acquire the approval from the institution prior to carrying out of the research via their IRB. Standard 8.07 codes of ethics are based upon the dilemma of ethics. It stimulates conflict between the core values of the profession. The core values are such as the promoting of physiology science via research and the emphasizing of scientific psychologists’ responsibilities to the community and truthfulness promotion (Behnke, 2009). Despite the incorporation of cost-effective approaches by the standard, in resolving the existing dilemma, it does not clearly define how study results can be termed as being critical. Thus the inadequacy of justifying the utilization of deception in research has not been clearly addressed by the code. The Stanford Prison Study by Zimbardo’s does not follow the ethical standard code rule. The participants were not informed on what was going to occur during the research process. The deception was not utilized accordingly as their existed physical pain to the research participants. The prisoners in the experiment were brutalized by the guards thus causing anxiety, distress and pain. The volunteers were never debriefed prior and before the actual experiment process. Since the main objective of psychologist is to be responsible to societies around you, Zimbardo as a researcher did not do that in his research process. Being a prison warden in the experiment, he sat back and ignored the plight of the prisoners. He never took any role in ensuring that the participants did not suffer from harm. Conclusion Deception has continued to be a topic under contention among researchers in behavioral science. Researchers should make efforts of carrying out researches that are ethical and valid in nature. Pilot studies should be conducted in order to come up with a better perceptive on the necessity of using deception in research. The pilot studies will enhance the preservation of validity and the establishment of deceptive measures that will not entirely cause harm to the research participants. Incase deception ethical concerns are taken into consideration, the disciplines behavioral science should persist with their agendas that are action oriented. This can be achieved via the increased dialogues with various bodies such as the governmental and legislators committee. These bodies are often to enforce regulations that are rigid and mechanism review on enterprises that deal with human research (Diener, 2001). As research processes continues to employ deception in their studies, the threats of compelling the social and behavioral research into a mold that is biomedical in nature grows rapidly. It has become crucial for behavioral scientists to establish knowledgeable base and norms on when it is crucial to utilize deception. Instead of prohibiting deception, a circumstance evaluation should be conducted in order to determine whether to allow or not to allow deception. Research deception should always be considered the last option by investigators. Those utilizing deception should ensure that no severe harm or emotional traumatized occurs to the research participants. Deception has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, hiding of information from research volunteers protects them from harmful events that may occur to them while conducting the experiment. On the other hand, deception may result to inflicting of injury to the participants. Citing the example of Stanford Prison Study, those individuals who performed the role of prisoners were subjected to pain in the experiment. They were oppressed and brutalized by the prison guards. References Behnke, S. (2009). Reading the Ethics Code more deeply. Monitor on Psychology, 40, 66-67. Cherry, K. (2012). The Stanford prison experiment: An experiment in the psychology of imprisonment. New York, NY: New York Times Company. Diener, E. (2001). Over-concern with research ethics. Dialogue, 16, 2. Kimmel, A.J, Smith, N. & Klein, J. (2010). Ethical decision making and research deception in behavioral science: An application to social contract theory. Journal of INSEAD Working Paper Collections, 1-56. Lawson, E. (2001). Informational and relational meanings of deception: Implications for deception methods in research. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 115-130. Smith, N., Kimmel, A. & Klein, J. G. (2009). Social contract theory and the ethics of deception in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 486-496. Read More