The Line in Ethics - Research Paper Example

? The Line in Research Ethics The Line in Research Ethics Ethics refers to adherence to set guidelines when carrying out a psychological research. Most of the psychological researches employ human beings as participants to study a particular phenomenon. The ethical code of conduct directs the investigators and researchers through establishing boundaries in their study or researches. Ethical code of conduct emphasizes on respect of human participants. This calls for protection of human participants and acknowledgement of their autonomy. The code of conduct requires the researchers or investigators to accommodate the views and choices of the participants. The participants should be given the freedom to make their judgments (APA, 2002). The code of conduct asserts special consideration of participants with less autonomy. This group needs a comprehensive protection and should not be allowed to participate in studies that may elicit harm (APA, 2002). The participants should enter into the research or studies voluntarily without compelled to do so. The researcher or investigator should inform their participants about the purpose of the study. This should happen before the study begins. The researcher should ask the consent of the participants to take part in the study. The ethical code of conduct demands that the researcher should tell the participants about the procedures of the research and the foreseeable risks and discomforts (Office for Human Research Protections, 1979). The ethics demands that the investigator should guarantee the wellbeing of the participants. The investigators should show acts of kindness and hospitality to the participants. This should be efforts to reduce the possible harm and increase the benefits despite the inherent risks. The benefits of the research should be given to the participants without any complications. All the participants should receive an equal share of the benefits. Despite the guidelines and rules that the code of conduct lays down deception characterizes the psychological researches. This is misleading of the participants about the aim of the research. In addition, the researcher can also provide partial information about the experiences that the participants might expect during the study period. Many psychologists view deception as unethical and morally reprehensible (Cozby, 2008). It is an area of controversy between the researchers and the psychologists. Predominantly, deception is used in experimental settings although it is a tool in survey researches. Many investigators argue that it is a crucial characteristic for a successful experimental research. This research paper will explore the ethical concerns in Milgram study of obedience. The research will also examine contemporary societal experience that could elicit ethical questions. Milgram and other studies in the readings used deception to collect their data. This raised ethical concerns because the researchers did not inform the participants of the purpose of the study. The fact that the participants went to the study without an informed consent is ethically unacceptable. The ethical code of conduct requires the participants have prior knowledge of the purpose of the study. Milgram research that was conducted in 1963 employs deception. The researcher misinformed his participants that the research was about the effects of punishment on learning. The investigator used the teacher and student to justify his move. This left the participants without suspicion of any element of deception. The actual purpose of the research was to investigate obedience under instruction and personal conscience. The research explored the Germans’ obedience to the authority figures. This was because there was common justification for Nazi killing in the Second World War. The investigator sought the extent to which people would go with activities that caused harm to the others (Cozby, 2008). This denied the participants the right to make informed decision to join the study. Many of the participants joined the study with the wrong information on the purpose of the study. The participants in the obedience study do not realize that the learner is an accomplice of the research. The teacher is instructed to administer shocks the moment the learner errs. A replica study that Burger Jerry, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University, performed in the year 2007 generated ethical questions. The participants were exposed to the shock of generator. This is ethically unacceptable. Initially the participants in Milgram experiment were informed that they could leave the experiment. This did not happen because the prods from the investigator made this difficulty. There was no protection of the participants in the experiment. The participants suffered psychological stress during administration of the shocks to the learners. In addition, the experimenter induced anxiety in his participants (Cozby, 2008). The ethical code of conduct requires that researchers should not use deception in their research. However, they allow minimal deception when give explanation for the importance of their research. This is after the alternatives with do not employ deception prove impractical. The ethical code of conduct demands debriefing of the participants about information withheld in the study at the end of experiment. This reduces possible and detrimental effects that might stress or harm the participants. Conversely, it is impossible for a researcher to obtain some important facts of the psychological researches without employing deception. For instance, the researches designed to yield information about the influence of expectation or other psychological factors on psycho-activity of drugs. Other experiments that are devised to explain the psychological phenomena such as trustworthy and obedience use of deception is necessary. Informing the participants will jeopardize the outcomes of the results. The experimenter will not get or discover important aspects of psychological phenomena (Weiten, Dunn, and Hammer, 2011). This is because the participant will alter their genuine characters. In Milgram experiment the use of deception enables the experimenter to establish the truth of the subject of obedience. The participants and one participant assume the role of a teacher and pupil respectively. The experimenter informs the participants that the role of experiment is to test the consequences of punishment to learning process. The participant who purports to be a pupil is investigator’s confederate. The teacher was to teach words in a list to test the memory of the pupil. The participants administer electric shock when the pupil mistakes the words. In the real sense, there is no electric shock. The pupil shouting to the teacher is a mere pretence. The teacher continues to apply shocks up to the maximum intensity of the voltage level. Despite the screams from the pupil the teacher acts under the orders of investigator. The orders dictated that it was necessary for the research to reach the end. Without the deception, the obedience experiment could not succeed. This is because if the participants knew that that design of experiment had no shocks they could not administer the shocks to the students. The participants gave their whole to the study because they knew the purpose was to test effect of punishment to learning process. They did all their best to achieve the objective of the study. The experimenter proved the earlier survey that predicated people could resist the orders of those in power (Cozby, 2008). In fact the actual experiment revealed that 65 % of the participants complied with the authority. The research concluded that ordinary people can be brutal under direction from those in power. In Zimbardo’s Prison Study, the researcher gave the participants little information. The researcher conducted Prison experiment in Stanford University in 1973 using the basement of the university as a simulation prison. The aim of the study was to investigate how people would conform to the roles of the guard and prisoner in the role-playing exercise. He used prisoners and guards as his participants. The guard felt that that the study was primarily about the behavior of the prisoners. This is because the investigator provided little information to the participants. In this experiment the police arrested the prisoners unexpectedly in their own homes. This brought unexpected suffering to the prisoners. The prisoners suffer a lot of psychological trauma when in prison (Weiten, Dunn and Hammer, 2011). The investigator gave the prisoners little information on the nasty experience of prison life. Use of deception helped the researcher to get the right picture of actual prison life. If the participants had prior knowledge of the prison life they could be psychologically prepared before they enter in the simulation prison. Modern psychological researches possess ethical concerns that in Milgram’s Experiment encountered. For instance, an experiment can be designed that investigates trustworthy in new employees. The researcher should simulate a work environment with encourages corruption. In this case, the researcher object is to seek to know whether work environment contributes to honest individuals engaging in dubious ways of getting money. Through the use of deception the investigator gives the wrong purpose of the study. The researcher can inform the participants that the aim of the experiment is to investigate the management styles of that organization. During the study the participants should be exposed to activities that involve handling of money. The personnel who pretend to be dishonest should do their best to elicit an interest for the participants to join in fraudulent deals. The personnel should demand that the employees to keep high level of secrecy about the corrupt activities. At the end of study, debriefing should follow to inform the participants about the information that was withheld (APA, 2002). The scenario devises a follow up questionnaires to capture the experiences of the participants. There are ethical concerns in both this scenario and Milgram Experiment. First the experimenters gave a force impression of the role of the research. The participants therefore entered into the research without an informed consent. The participants could have made a sound decision if they had the correct aim of experiment. Second, the exposure of participants to money was a source of temptation. Although it does not cause a physical harm to the participants, it is obvious it had psychological harm to the new employees. Matters of money bring about temptations to honest individuals. The exposure of participants to this risk is justifiable. The level of risk in this scenario was very minimal. This is in accordance to ethical code of conduct that requires the researchers to maintain possible harm at minimal level (APA, 2002). After the study, the experimenter conducted a follow up study to seek to know the participation experience of the participants. References American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Retrieved 10 Apr 2012, from www.whitman.edu/~blagovp/resources/ethical-principles-poster.pdf CITI. (2010). CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Retrieved 10 Apr 2012, from www.citiprogram.org. Cozby, P. (2008). Methods in Behavioral Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Office for Human Research Protections. (1979). Belmont Report. Retrieved 10 Apr 2012, from http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.htm. Weiten, A., Dunn, D., and Hammer, E. (2011). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More