Full Answer Section

ntensity to the learner for incorrect answers, with the voltage supposedly ranging from 15 to 450 volts. In reality, no shocks were administered; the learner’s cries of pain were pre-recorded. The “experimenter” (another confederate in a lab coat) prompted the teacher to continue when they hesitated, using phrases like “Please continue” or “The experiment requires that you continue.”

(Slide 3: Results/Findings of the Milgram Study)

Results/Findings: Milgram’s findings were profoundly unsettling. Despite visible signs of distress, including sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and even seizures in some participants, an astonishing 65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock. All participants administered shocks up to 300 volts. The study demonstrated a disturbing willingness of ordinary individuals to obey authority figures, even when commanded to perform actions that appeared to cause severe harm to another person. These results challenged prevailing assumptions about individual autonomy and moral judgment.

(Slide 4: Ethical Concerns and Violations – Deception)

Ethical Concerns: Deception Milgram’s study heavily relied on extensive deception. Participants were misled about the true purpose of the study (it was about obedience, not learning), the nature of the shocks (they were fake), and the identity of the “learner” (an actor, not a real participant).

Why this is of concern: This deception directly violates APA Ethical Standard 8.07, Deception in Research. While deception can sometimes be justified in research if it’s necessary for the study’s validity and no equally effective non-deceptive alternatives exist, the extent and nature of deception in Milgram’s study were extreme. Participants were deprived of their right to truly understand what they were consenting to, undermining the principle of informed consent. This lack of transparency also eroded trust in psychological research.

(Slide 5: Ethical Concerns and Violations – Protection from Harm)

Ethical Concerns: Lack of Protection from Harm Participants in Milgram’s study experienced significant psychological distress, including anxiety, guilt, and emotional turmoil, believing they were inflicting severe pain, or even death, on another human being. Some participants exhibited extreme stress reactions, including nervous laughter, trembling, and even seizures.

Why this is of concern: This directly violates APA Ethical Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence (do no harm) and APA Ethical Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm. Researchers have an ethical obligation to protect participants from physical and psychological harm. Milgram’s study exposed participants to severe emotional distress and potential long-term psychological impact without adequate safeguards or clear pathways for withdrawal from the stressful situation.

(Slide 6: Ethical Concerns and Violations – Right to Withdraw & Debriefing)

Ethical Concerns: Right to Withdraw & Inadequate Debriefing Participants were explicitly told they had the right to withdraw at any time. However, when they expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter used a series of prods (“Please continue,” “The experiment requires that you continue,” “It is absolutely essential that you continue,” “You have no other choice, you must go on”) that made withdrawal extremely difficult, effectively coercing them to continue. Furthermore, the debriefing provided after the study was often incomplete or dishonest, failing to fully “dehoax” participants and address their distress. Some participants left believing they had genuinely harmed someone.

Why this is of concern: This violates APA Ethical Standard 8.02, Informed Consent to Research, specifically the right to decline participation and withdraw. Participants must be explicitly informed of their right to withdraw at any time without penalty, and this right must be honored. The inadequate debriefing also violates APA Ethical Standard 8.08, Debriefing, which requires researchers to provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and to take reasonable steps to reduce any harm that may have arisen. Milgram’s fear of “contaminating” the participant pool led him to prioritize research continuity over participant well-being.

(Slide 7: IRB Reviewer: Required Revisions for NCU IRB Approval)

As an NCU IRB Reviewer, here are the specific steps the researcher must take to revise this study to gain approval:

1. Full Informed Consent:

   • Revision: The researcher must provide comprehensive informed consent to all participants. This consent must clearly state the true purpose of the study (investigating obedience to authority), the actual procedures involved (that no real shocks are given, the learner is a confederate), and explicitly outline all potential psychological risks (e.g., feelings of discomfort, anxiety, moral dilemma).
   • APA Violation Addressed: APA Ethical Standard 8.02, Informed Consent to Research.
   • Rationale: Participants must be fully aware of what they are agreeing to. Transparent consent respects their autonomy and allows for genuinely voluntary participation. Deception should only be used as a last resort, and if used, its necessity must be unequivocally justified, and comprehensive debriefing is non-negotiable.

2. Protection from Harm and Psychological Safeguards:

   • Revision: The study design must include robust mechanisms to protect participants from psychological distress. This would necessitate pre-screening for psychological vulnerability, the presence of a qualified mental health professional available during the study for immediate intervention, and clearly defined thresholds for discontinuing a participant’s involvement if they exhibit excessive distress.
   • APA Violation Addressed: APA Ethical Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence; APA Ethical Standard 3.04, Avoiding Harm.
   • Rationale: The potential for severe psychological harm in the original study is unacceptable. The IRB’s primary duty is to protect human subjects. We must ensure that the risks are minimized and that immediate support is available.

3. Unrestricted Right to Withdraw:

   • Revision: Participants must be explicitly and repeatedly reminded of their unequivocal right to withdraw at any point, without any consequence or pressure from the experimenter. The “prods” must be entirely removed or rephrased to genuinely inquire about the participant’s willingness to continue, rather than coercing them.
   • APA Violation Addressed: APA Ethical Standard 8.02, Informed Consent to Research.
   • Rationale: The right to withdraw is fundamental to voluntary participation. Any perceived coercion undermines the ethical validity of the data and the participant’s dignity.

4. Comprehensive and Immediate Debriefing:

   • Revision: Immediately following their participation, all participants must receive a full and honest debriefing. This includes revealing all deception, explaining the true aims of the study, and addressing any misconceptions or distress they may have experienced. Follow-up resources (e.g., contact information for counseling services) must be provided, and participants should be given the opportunity to discuss their experience in detail.
   • APA Violation Addressed: APA Ethical Standard 8.08, Debriefing.
   • Rationale: A thorough debriefing is essential to mitigate any harm caused by deception and to restore participants’ trust in the research process. It’s an opportunity for researchers to ensure participants leave the study feeling respected and informed, rather than exploited or distressed.