Youngpeter, K. (2008). Controversial psychological research methods and their influence on the development of formal ethical guidelines. Student Journal of Psychological Science, 1(1), 4-12. Controversial Psychological Research Methods and Their Influence on the Development of Formal Ethical Guidelines Katie Youngpeter Metropolitan State College of Denver Abstract: Presently, researchers must give special ethical concerns to monitor participant treatment when they are utilizing controversial research methods. Such methods include, but are not limited to deception, coercion, and potentially inducing psychological harm. Throughout the course of the history of psychology as a science, a number of different ethical guidelines have been developed and employed in a variety of ways. The interest in developing guidelines for psychological research was stimulated by several studies, particularly Watson and Raynor’s research on Little Albert (1920), Milgram’s interest in obedience (1963; 1964), Humphrey’s naturalistic observations of tearooms (1973), and Zimbardo and colleague’s prison experiment (1973). Each of these studies has in part contributed to the current ethical standards for psychology research on humans in the United States. Current APA guidelines are briefly discussed. Whenever research involves human development of formal ethical codes for participants, researchers must give psychological research (Kimmel, 1996), special ethical concerns to monitor and there were several important participant treatment. In general, most studies that brought these issues to people would not support the idea of light (e.g., Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, suppressing an individual’s civil rights 1973; Humphreys, 1975; Milgram, for the sake of expanding our 1963; Watson & Rayner, 1920). These knowledge of human nature; on the studies are important to review and other hand, researchers often are appreciate because each has ultimately unable to predict the results of their contributed, in part, to the current manipulations, thereby making it guidelines of the American unreasonable to reprimand them on the Psychological Association (see APA, basis of their findings alone. Moreover, 2002) researchers must be particularly Ethics is the study of proper action cautious when using deception, (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Changes coercion, and potential psychological in research interests over the past harm, as well as consider voluntary several decades have substantially participation and overall confidentiality. influenced the evolution of ethical Indeed, the aforementioned factors were standards, guidelines and codes for the main focal points for the research within the field of psychology. K. Youngpeter 5 Compared to other sciences, psychology the major focus in his famous study on is a relatively new field, so, “Little Albert” was how human understandably, the concern for emotional responses are created creating guidelines for researchers is (Watson & Rayner, 1920). Watson and also a novel enterprise (Gravetter & Rayner hypothesized that fear could be Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, 1996). conditioned in a baby, which suggested However, the general public, as well as that fear of specific objects or events researchers, tended to be unconcerned was not innate and that fears were not with the creation of formal ethical codes the results of adverse sexual for this field until the growing experiences (the popular Freudian popularity of behaviorist studies on theory at the time [Watson & Rayner, people, and later, socio-psychological 1920]). Watson and Rayner created an research. In particular, researchers had experimental method to test this, and little regard for the ethics revolving therein laid the ethical concerns with around how behavioral traits emerge in their work. uncomfortable situations (Haney et al., Using Albert, an 11-month-old boy 1973; Humphreys, 1975; Milgram, with a very relaxed demeanor, Watson 1963; Watson & Rayner, 1920). and Rayner (1920) attempted to create During psychology’s infancy, a novel fear of a white rat. Albert researchers were indifferent toward initially was not afraid of the rat, and ethics because they often based their indeed was very curious about it; but, studies on introspection rather than as soon as Albert touched the animal, social manipulations (Hergenhahn, Watson hit a large metal bar which 2001). Initially, psychophysics gained yielded a loud, unpleasant noise that popularity in the early 1900s and was was found beforehand to upset the characterized by the simple recording of baby. It took only seven rat-sound participant responses after exposing pairings for the rat alone to elicit an them to various types of stimuli, such extreme response in the child, as colored lights or slight pricks on the characterized by withdrawal and crying. skin (Hergenhahn, 2001). While The association persisted strongly for participants may not have known what one week, and Albert was again tested exactly was being studied, they were after about one month – the fear was aware that they were participating in still present, albeit somewhat weaker. research, communicated directly with The response had also generalized the researcher about their experiences, toward other white, furry objects, and usually did not have to be including a rabbit, dog, fur coat and concerned about the possibility of Santa mask. However, Albert was still feeling humiliated, embarrassed, or content to interact with dissimilar otherwise harmed due to the tests that objects such as toy blocks while in the were administered to them laboratory environment (Watson & (Hergenhahn, 2001). Rayner, 1920). With the rise of behaviorism in the Watson and Rayner’s (1920) 1920s came a new interest in methodologies helped facilitate the environmental factors and their growing concern for participant influence on behaviors. For example, a wellbeing, particularly for those unable researcher may have been curious to give consent or even assent, such as about how reinforcement and infants (Baumrind, 1964; Fischer, punishment could respectively lead to 2005). Despite the child’s obvious likes and dislikes (Hergenhahn, 2001). discomfort, Watson and Rayner Watson was one such researcher, and continued with the study. To make Student Journal of Psychological Science 6 matters even more controversial, researchers were tried for their crimes Watson and Rayner failed to conduct in Nuremberg, Germany (Fischer, the final part of the experiment, which 2005). involved extinguishing the fear, because The Nuremberg Code (Kimmel, Albert’s mother had to move. Watson 1996) was created as a set of guidelines and Rayner responded to this specifically for researchers in the unfortunate outcome by assuring the biomedical field, but psychologists reader that Albert, like all babies, adopted it as their own because the would have likely developed a similar Nuremberg Code focuses on the association anyway out in the “rough treatment of live participants (Kimmel, and tumble” world (Watson & Rayner, 1996). Moreover, during the 1950s, 1920, p. 2). While fearing fuzzy, white there was a rising interest in how objects may not have adversely impact people interact with others, as well as Albert’s life, critics began to feel a rising how they respond in various social concern about experimenters possibly situations. This interest was stemmed instilling serious, permanent by the widespread adoption of psychological damage in the very people Functionalism, a school of thought they are relying on for their data which emphasized studying cognitive (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Despite processes (Hergenhahn, 2001). Because these criticisms of his research, these processes are almost always however, the APA offered Watson high influenced by our environment, praise in 1957 for revolutionizing psychologists began asking questions modern psychology (Skinner, 1960). about what factors are important in Although most psychologists guiding behaviors. This resulted in an assumed that all researchers would be interest in ethics for this field because, reasonably responsible for their as previously mentioned, methods such participants’ wellbeing (Gravetter & as deception can be unclear in terms of Forzano, 2006), there were important whether or not they harm participants exceptions in the 1940s during World (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, War II. These war crimes, isolated to 1996). If anything, social psychologists Germany and Japan, involved had to be diligent in their use of disturbing manipulations of prisoners informed consent and debriefing that left them severely psychologically procedures. or physically damaged or even resulting After the development of the in death (Fischer, 2005). Under normal Nuremberg Code, almost all circumstances, one would hope that a psychologists accepted and followed its researcher would do all possible to keep guidelines, but it was nonetheless his participants comfortable – if informal and did not necessarily dictate anything to not instill any how a study should be conducted discouragement toward research. War (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, crimes are unique, however, because 1996). It was not until the late 1960s the participants are viewed as that all institutions that conducted subhuman and thus treated as such to funded research on humans were minimize feelings of guilt (Fischer, required to have an Institutional Review 2005). While these crimes tended to Board (IRB; Pope, 1992) and not until involve physiological interests rather 1978 that a set of guidelines, called the than