5 Controversial Psychology Experiments That Would Never Happen Today

Summary

This SciShow episode delves into the ethical evolution of psychological research. It highlights the Belmont Report's principles—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—as cornerstones for protecting human subjects. Historical experiments, like Watson's conditioning of 'Little Albert' and the damaging 'Monster Study,' exemplify past ethical lapses. The episode also covers Milgram's obedience study and Zimbardo's prison experiment, illustrating how they raised awareness about authority and social roles' psychological impacts but also underscored the need for stringent ethical guidelines in research.

Takeaways

• 🧠 The study of the human mind is challenging, and ethical considerations are crucial when working with human subjects.
• 📜 The Belmont Report, created in the 1970s, established three key ethical principles for human research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
• ✅ Respect for persons requires informed consent, meaning participants must understand the risks and benefits of a study before participating.
• ⚖️ Beneficence ensures researchers avoid harming participants, aiming to protect their wellbeing.
• 📝 Justice ensures that research participants are not exploited and that the benefits and burdens of the research are fairly distributed.
• ❌ Historical psychology experiments, such as John Watson's conditioning of Baby Albert and Wendell Johnson's 'Monster Study,' would be deemed unethical by today's standards.
• ⚡ In the 1961 Milgram Experiment, subjects were pressured to deliver harmful electric shocks, highlighting the potential for obedience to authority to override moral judgment.
• 👥 The 1968 bystander effect study by John Darley and Bibb Latané demonstrated that individuals are less likely to intervene in a crisis if others are present.
• 🏛️ The 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, led by Philip Zimbardo, had to be ended early due to severe psychological harm, showing the power of social roles on behavior.
• 🛡️ Modern ethical standards, influenced by these troubling historical studies, emphasize the responsibility of researchers to protect their participants, ensuring psychological studies are conducted safely.

Q & A

What is the Belmont Report and why is it significant?

The Belmont Report is a set of ethical guidelines created in the 1970s to protect human subjects in research. It outlines three key principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. These principles ensure that participants give informed consent, that researchers minimize harm, and that the burdens and benefits of research are fairly distributed.

What are the three key ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report?

The three key principles are: 1) Respect for Persons, which requires informed consent from participants; 2) Beneficence, which means researchers should avoid causing harm and ensure participants' well-being; and 3) Justice, which ensures that the burdens and benefits of research are distributed fairly among all groups.

Why was the 'Little Albert' experiment conducted, and what were its ethical issues?

The 'Little Albert' experiment was conducted by John Watson to demonstrate classical conditioning in humans, similar to Pavlov's work with dogs. However, the study was unethical because it used a single subject without consent and caused lasting fear in the child without reconditioning him to remove the fear response.

What was the goal of the 'Monster Study,' and why is it considered unethical?

The goal of the 'Monster Study' was to investigate the effects of positive and negative feedback on children's speech. It is considered unethical because it involved vulnerable orphans, who couldn't consent, and caused long-term psychological harm to some children by undermining their self-esteem and speech confidence.

What did the Milgram Experiment demonstrate about human behavior?

The Milgram Experiment demonstrated that people are likely to obey authority figures even when asked to perform actions that conflict with their morals. In this case, many participants continued to administer what they believed were painful electric shocks to another person because they were instructed to do so by an authority figure.

What is the 'Bystander Effect,' and how was it studied?

The 'Bystander Effect' refers to the phenomenon where people are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present, assuming someone else will take action. It was studied by Darley and Latané in 1968, where subjects overheard a recorded student having a seizure and were slower to respond if they thought others were also listening.

What were the main ethical flaws in the Stanford Prison Experiment?

The Stanford Prison Experiment had several ethical flaws, including lack of impartiality by the lead researcher, Philip Zimbardo, who played a role in the study. The experiment subjected participants to psychological harm, as the 'guards' became abusive and the 'prisoners' experienced significant distress. The study was terminated early due to these issues.

How did early psychological studies contribute to modern ethical standards in research?

Early psychological studies, like those by Watson, Milgram, and Zimbardo, highlighted the need for ethical guidelines to protect participants from harm and ensure informed consent. These studies' ethical failures led to the development of the Belmont Report, which established principles to guide all human research.

What impact did the Milgram Experiment have on future research in psychology?

The Milgram Experiment significantly impacted future research by raising awareness of the potential for psychological harm in studies involving deception and authority. It led to stricter ethical standards and review processes to protect participants from undue stress and to ensure informed consent.

Why would the Stanford Prison Experiment not be approved under today's ethical standards?

The Stanford Prison Experiment would not be approved today because it failed to protect participants from psychological harm, lacked proper oversight, and involved a conflict of interest with the researcher acting as the prison superintendent. Current ethical standards require strict monitoring, consent, and the ability to withdraw without penalty.