Milgram (1974) and Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) conducted studies to determine the effects of the environment on obedience and conformity. The two studies reveal different aspects of responding to instructions by people in different environments. In Milgram's study, it was evident that people conform to instructions due to fear of suffering from injurious consequences. The intensity of the consequences was a major determinant of the level of conformity. More intense shocks administered by the teachers to the students resulted in faster answering of questions, and the student is pleading with the teachers not torment them further. In Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) experiment, the prisoners dreaded the punishments given by the guards in the case of misconduct, and they carried their duties efficiently. To avoid punishment and humiliation, they were ready to report the misconduct of their colleagues to the guards.
Although the studies were faced with denigration from different parties, they were instrumental in shedding light on the nature of human behavior. First, they revealed that the social roles attributed to a different position to a large extent determine people’s behavior. For instance, in the prison experiment, the guards harassed the prisoners because they believed that the environment and their position allowed them to do so.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, they exposed that people’s motivation and behavior is determined by the consequences attached to the failure to perform a given task. For instance, the learners in Milgram’s study struggled to answer the question given by their teachers for fear of getting electric shocks. They also revealed that most of the social roles are stereotyped and this affects people’s response. By looking at the way the guards in the simulated prison research treated the inmates, for instance, undressing and harassing them, it is clear that they believed that they were justified to do so and they could not be effective guards if they failed to treat the prisoners in such a way.
The two studies had different impacts on the human participants. First, the participants suffered subjective pain and humiliation. For instance, the learners were subjected to electric shocks that were so severe that some of the teachers thought that they had succumbed to them. By stripping the prisoners and harassing them, the guards’ actions had far reaching effects on the psychological well-being of the prisoners.
Although the environment was supposed to be simulated, it was turned into a real-life event. This explains why some of the prisoners could not cope with the situation after36 hours due to depression and a near emotional breakdown. In addition, some of the participants who were playing the dominant roles felt guilty for infringing pain on the other participants (Milgram, 1974). For instance, some of the teachers in Milgram's study were worried, and they cried in the belief that they had killed the students and they had to be debriefed to reassure them that the students were well.
The current ethical practices pertaining research s outlined by APAencompasses the aspects of integrity, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, justice, observance of human rights and dignity(American Psychological Association, 2016). The two studies among other controversial researchers were critical in helping the APA develop a set of rules to protect the participants. For instance, in the two studies, the aspect of human rights and dignity was overlooked because the participants were subjected to pain, harassment, and humiliation, in addition, the participants were paid to participate in the study, and this was against the provision of manipulation.
The participation of unwilling parties who are only motivated by the reward is likely to result in inconsistent and invalid results. The principle of beneficence and non-maleficence indicates that the professionalresearchers should be considered with the welfare of the subjects who are used as participants in any given study(American Psychological Association, 2016). The physical pain and emotional disturbance suffered by the participants in the two studies was a prime example that triggered the conception of the rule. The researchers were aware of the implications of the research but did not warn the participants in advance. They claimed that they did not project such behavior to crop among the participants. As Bowern (2015) observe, since the studies had not been conducted in other places, the researchers were supposed to be cautious before subjecting the participants in fully simulated environments.
There are various factors that make the studies justifiable. First, were it not for them, it would have ben challenging to understand how human being behave when under duress or some form of compellation. This was evident in the simulated study whereby, the guards and the prisoners assumed their roles as a result of the environment to which they were exposed. Secondly, there is a possibility of studies revealing inconsistent or unreliable results if the participants are not put in a real-life environment. The two studies allowed latitude to the dominant parties to exert real pain, and this helped the researchers to collect valid data.
However, subjecting the participants to painful, humiliating conditions could have detrimental effects to their physical and emotionalhealth. Therefore, the researchersoverlooked the safety of the participants in favor of their results. In addition, since no similar studies had been carried out before, it was unwitting for the researchers to engage in fully simulated studies without being aware of the possible outcomes. For instance after 36 hours, one of the prisoners could not cope with the prison environment, and he exhibited signs of emotional disturbance(Haney, Banks & Zimbardo, 1973). It was highly unethical for the researchers to oversee such treatment. On the other hand, the individuals overseeing the punishment given to the students in Milgram’s case coerced the teachers to continue inflicting pain on the studentseven when they were hesitant (Milgram, 1974). This was an indication that they were not concerned with the plight of the participants but how they would react when subjected to excruciating pain.
The information obtained in the studies was not worth the risk posed to the human subjects. The rationale for this is that they were not intended to solve a serious problem in the community. In fact, they could not be likened to medical tests that aim at developing the cure for a given medical condition. In Milgram’s study, the objective was to understand why people obey when they are coerced. A different study involving observation or interviewing people who had been subjected to various punitive environments could have yielded fairly similar results rather exposing people to extreme pain.
Conversely, Zimbardo's study was criticized for his interest in understanding human behavior for the benefit of training people in the armed forces to cope with stress while in captivity. Primarily, it was not aimed at improving the conditions in the prisons. Furthermore, the research could have used military personnel rather than recruiting students. Therefore, the results of the studies could most be justified because apart from contravening the rights of the participants, they were not aimed at solving a staid issue in the society.
Conclusively, the APA developed a set of principles to protect the participants from unethical researchers who could engage in manipulative practices to obtain results. The regulations protect the participants from being exploited and being subjected to inhuman conditions. Researchers should be cautious when carrying out studies that do not have previous comparisons because their effects on the participants may be unpredictable just like in the cases of Milgram and Zimbardo.
References
American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the" Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct"(2002, as amended 2010). The American psychologist , 71 (9), 900.
Bowern, C. (2015). Ethical Field Research. In Linguistic Fieldwork (pp. 167-189). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval research reviews , 9 (1-17).
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View . New York: Harper
