9 September 2017

Psychology,
Health and
Science

The New Yorker

To what extent does the contribution to our understanding of human
behaviour and application in the real world justify any ethical violations?

The Experiment
Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, carried out an
experiment considered to be one of the most controversial and
unethical in the history of psychology, known as the Milgram
experiment on obedience. This experiment aimed to find out
the eect of authority and ones own conscience on obedience.

Milgrams research targeted Germans, to research whether

Germans specifically were more likely to execute orders given
by authority persons. If proven true, this could be evidence for
the Nazi killings, and the executioners in the World War II,
Nuremberg War Criminal Trials who argued they were only
obeying orders given by people of authority.

The actual aim of the experiment was to examine the extent to

The Milgram Experiment on
which people would follow orders, even if it caused the other
Obedience person pain, if told to do so by an authority figure.

40 males between the ages of 20-50 with all kinds of jobs

(unemployed, skilled, etc.) were paired with a confederate and
told to draw a straw, which indicated their role - learner or
teacher. The confederate would always be the teacher, but the
1

How can breaking the code of
ethics to find data which could
advance research be justified?
9 September 2017
participants didnt know the confederate was an accomplice in
the experiment. The experimenter acted as an authority
figure.
The learner (confederate) in the experiment was fastened to a
chair that had electrodes. He was given word pairs to
memorise, after which the teacher would say a word, give 4
possible pair choices, and ask the learner to name the right
one. If the learner made a mistake, which he deliberately did,
the teacher would have to give a shock. There were 30 shocks
in total, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts - enough to kill
someone. If the teacher wanted to discontinue with the
experiment or didnt want to give more shocks, the
experimenter had to read out a prod, starting from please
continue to you have no other choice but to continue.
Milgrams results showed that 65% of the teachers went up to
450 volts, while everyone went up to 300. He concluded that
people will obey orders given by a powerful person, even if
those orders are proven to be fatal. Orders from normal people
are also followed if they seem to be morally and ethically
correct, or if they surround legal matters. This type of
authority comes from workplaces, schools, etc., while following
orders from authorities has been deep-rooted into from the
way we have been raised.
Ethical Considerations
A major ethics code was broken with this experiment -
deception. The subjects didnt know of the confederates
involvement in the experiment, leading them to believe they
were actually harming the learner with the shocks.
A code of ethics is protection of participants, which states that
participants shouldnt be exposed to any harm or stress. In
Milgrams experiment, participants were under great
psychological stress, shown through visible signs such as
sweating, biting fingernails, nervous laughing, stuttering, etc. 3
of the subjects were even subjected to violent seizures.
Another reason why Milgrams experiment caused ethical
controversy was because he didnt give the participants a right
to withdraw. He told the experimenter to use 4 prods if and
when the subjects wanted to opt out - Please continue; The
experiment requires that you continue; It is absolutely
2
 9 September 2017

essential that you continue; You have no other choice, you

must go on.

Short term and long term implications

After the experiment was finished, Milgram wanted to find out
whether the participants had been aected by deception. 83.7%
were glad to be in the experiment while 1.3% said they didnt
want to partake in this experiment.

Milgram stated that even though the participants were

unprotected, all the psychological eects were short-term, and
wouldnt have long lasting eects. After he fully debriefed
them, and they themselves saw that the learner was fine, their
stress levels dramatically reduced.

Justification
Stanley Milgram justified his use of deception by saying that
illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the
revelation of certain dicult-to-get-at-truths.

Milgram validated his experiment by firstly, completely

debriefing them and telling them the reasons for the
conduction of this experiment and the participants
involvement in it. He also reassured them that the way they
reacted in the experiment was ordinary.

Furthermore, Milgram also checked up on each of the subjects

after a year to ensure that he hadnt caused any long-term
psychological harm.

Milgram opposed the criticism against not giving his

participants the right to withdraw by stating that due to the
nature and aims of the experiment, giving orders to the
subjects was vital. Moreover, 35% of the 40 males had
withdrawn from the experiment so the ethics code wasnt
completely broken.

Milgrams experiment, although it didnt impact any participant

in the long run, was a key experiment, along with the Stanford
Prison experiment, in setting guidelines for psychologists all
over the world. It can be argued that though Milgrams
experiment wasnt ethical, Milgram himself wasnt an immoral
person. His experiment was truly conducted to understand
WWII, and more importantly, human nature. Not only this,
but the at the time he carried this experiment, there were no
such ethical guidelines which would refrain this.
3
 9 September 2017

Is it justifiable today? How can we use

Milgrams experiment to analyse all ethical
violations?
When someone participates in an experiment which could
potentially advance the study on human behaviour and
applications in everyday life, they do it on the basis that they
wont be harmed or distressed. Milgram might have debriefed
them but the participants own actions may haunt them for
life. The participants may lose their own sense of
consciousness, and may be more likely to perform violent and
fatal actions, much like what happened with Zimbardos
Stanford Prison Experiment.

It can be argued that Milgram was lucky with his participants

that this experiment didnt leave any long-term eects, because
the chances of the subjects having to live with shame and
remorse their whole life for how they could have possibly
murdered someone because they couldnt match pairs, was very
high.

Some might say that sometimes, psychologists need to take a

utilitarian approach, so even though the study may distress the
participants, if it has applications in the real world, then it can
be justified. However, human life is greater than research. How
can a psychologist ever decide which participant should have to
live with harmful psychologist for their whole life, just for the
benefit of a study?

There are cases where breaking the rule of deception and other
ethics codes can be justified. If it is concluded that there is no
way it will ever negatively impact the participant, and all
measures have been taken to ensure that, and if the experiment
conducted can greatly benefit society, then it is justifiable.
Experiments which can totally damage someones life can never
be justified in the name of science.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
https://faculty.frostburg.edu/mbradley/psyography/
stanleymilgram.html
https://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/
article35.htm
https://explorable.com/milgram-experiment-ethics
https://psucc8.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/stanley-milgram-was-
his-experiment-really-unethical/