Stanley Milgram's Obedience Study

Stanley Milgram’s (1963) Obedience study is widely known in the field of psychology. This study is particularly distinct because the findings of the study were surprising to public and ethical procedure of the study was controversial. Stanley Milgram (1963) conducted this particular experimented to examine the how far individuals obey an authority. His goal was to find an explanation of Natzi killings in World War II. He recruited male participants through newspaper advertising. The participants were “randomly selected” to be the teacher, while the confederate was assigned to the role of the learner. The learner was in a room strapped to a chair that delivered shocks. The participant was directed to press a button and deliver a shock to the
In 2009 Burger replicated the Milgram experiment in Santa Clara University. He noted that he made several modification to the design of the study. First he acknowledged that he did not let participants go past the 150 volts shock. Second he thoroughly screened potential participants who possibly might experience any negative effects from this study. The screening included taking, the Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck depression Inventory, and being interviewed in the guidelines of Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Third participants were provided the option to withdraw from the study, two times in writing and without being denied the 50 dollars offered to participate in the study. Fourth, participants were made to feel a 15-volt shock so that participants create a mental scale of degree of shocks the other “participant” might be experiencing. In the original study participants were sampled to feel a 45-volt shock. Sixth, he noted participants were debriefed as soon as the experiment was concluded. Seventh, He noted that the experimenter was a trained clinical psychologists, so that experimenter could stop the study as soon as they notice the participants was in any harm. Lastly, he noted that this experiment was approved by Santa Clara
Principle A, Beneficence and nonmaleficence fits because this principle is stated to protect the safety and well-being of the participants in the study. We can assume this protection includes for short-term and long-term well-being of participants. However, in Milgram’s original study and in the replicated version, participants psychological well-being is risks, as the participants are exposed to a stressful situation, even if it may seem those effects are reversible. Principle D, Justice, is also fitting for this case because it states that psychologists need to be aware of their biases and boundaries of their competence. In this case, the experimenters in this study set out to find explanations for a social phenomenon, thus they design this study expecting a certain outcome. It could be that experimenter's expectancy played a role in outcome of the study. Perhaps, other factors could have equally attributed to social phenomenon, such as the Natzi killings, but Milligram just happened to find a fitting