paper

The Milgram Experime

nt IRB

Review by Alejandro Vasquez, Kayla

Gard, Jaycee Johnson, Christian Wright, & Alayne

Santos

Summary

⤅ This social experiment studies

obedience to authority

⤅ Started as an investigation of

conformity (Gilovich, Keltner, Chen &

Nisbett, 2013)

⤅ We wondered what would happen if

participants were asked to deliver

electric shocks to another individual

when that person performs a

test/task and answers incorrectly

(Gilovich et al., 2013).

⤅ Would participants conform to

authority?

Summary of Experiment ⤅ Participants will respond to a newspaper ad and will be entered in a

“random” drawing

⤅ Drawing will be rigged

⤅ The “teacher” (the participant) will be administering shocks

starting from 15 volts going to the maximum amount of 450 volts

to the “learner” (the confederate)

⤅ The experimenter will give only 3 responses if and when the

participant starts to express reservation and tries to end the

experiment (Gilovich et al., 2013)

General Ethical

Concerns

⤅ Given that the selection of the

experiment will be random, will the

selected participants have the right

to refuse participation from the

experiment?

⤅ How can the experimenters be sure

that they will not cause any physical

and psychological harm to both the

“teachers” and “learners”

⤅ Will the participants be informed of

their tasks as well as the risks taking

on the roles of being the “teacher”

and the “learner”?

(American Psychological

Association, 2002)

Cont. of General Ethical Concerns

⤅ Will the participants be able to withdraw from the experiment at

any point in the process of the experiment?

⤅ How does the benefits outweigh the risks of this experiment?

⤅ Will there be any incentive in willingly participating in the

experiment?

(American Psychological Association, 2002)

Violated Ethics Codes

8.02 Informed Consent:

Purpose of research and Procedures

Right to withdrawal

Potential risks and benefits

8.07 Deception:

Severe emotional distress

(American Psychological Association, 2002)

Retrieved from http://www.bbcprisonstudy.org/index.php?p=12&NewsID=14

Violated Ethics Code

8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research

8.08 Debriefing

Image retrieved from https://images.app.goo.gl/SBJX8yNQDaNGVpYD6

Image retrieved from https://images.app.goo.gl/xbfcYtKkJnBn6wfG8

IRB Decision

⤅ Excessive Psychological Risks to

Participants

⤅ Insufficient Expected Benefits

Flat Out Rejected

Image retrieved from: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/how-government-literally-makes-people- go-insane/

Reasons for Rejection ⤅Lack of Informed Consent

⤅Deception

⤅Lack of Informed Consent for

Recorded Voices and Images

⤅Inadequate Debriefing

Image retrieved from: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/how-government-literally-makes-people- go-insane/

References American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American

Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-1073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.106

Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S., & Nisbett, R.E. (2013). Social psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company,

Inc.

Hererra, C. D. (2001). Ethics, Deception, and “Those Milgram Experiments.” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18(3), 245.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00192

McArthur, D. (2009). Good Ethics Can Sometimes Mean Better Science: Research Ethics and the Milgram Experiments.

Science and Engineering Ethics, (1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9083-4