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 psychological ones, they are still Belmont Report, was adopted (Fischer, important to psychologists because 2005; Gravetter & Forzano, 2006; Pope, they ultimately led to the creation of the 1992). An IRB is a diverse group of Nuremberg Code in 1947 after the individuals who review potential K. Youngpeter 7 research topics and determine if they 1963; 1965). After gathering a sample meet the guidelines as established by of 40 males with various career the overseeing ethical board (Gravetter backgrounds, he told the participants & Forzano, 2006). If a problem arises, that they were participating in research the researcher is contacted and asked on the effects of punishment on to revise his or her methodology. The memory. In each session, the rules arising from the Belmont Report participant was always assigned the have not changed drastically over time, role of the teacher while a confederate though, mainly because it is nearly played the learner and was ultimately impossible to impose strict rules on strapped to an electrical chair that psychological of research; there will could be controlled by the teacher in always be important exceptions where another room. The two communicated stringent guidelines would limit the via an intercom system (Milgram, usefulness of a research study (APA, 1963). 2002; Kimmel, 1996). Although all participants believed Despite growing efforts to protect the setup to be genuine, the learner participants, a number of controversial would never receive any actual shocks. studies emerged. Each controversial The participant’s job was to read to the study was considered ethically sound learner a list of words and wait for him according to APA, the established to repeat them in order. If he was research overseer at the time (Kimmel, incorrect or did not respond he was 1996) and yielded fascinating results. given a shock. Each time this occurred, However, upon being revealed to the the participant had to administer a fake public, the results and/or methods of shock that was 15 volts more intense these studies called for further than the last (the maximum was 450 revisions of ethical rules. These studies volts). The shock machine was labeled include, but certainly are not limited to, with phrases such as “Danger: Severe the following: Milgram’s numerous Shock” (Milgram, 1963, p. 373). If a studies on obedience (1963, 1965); participant expressed any concern Humphreys’ field studies on during the session, the experimenter “teahouses” (1975); and the Stanford urged him to continue by saying, for study on prison life (Haney et al., example, “It is absolutely essential that 1973). you continue” (Milgram, 1963, p. 374). But, participants were told at the MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE STUDIES beginning of the experiment that they Stanley Milgram was a social were free to leave whenever they wished psychologist who was intrigued by the to do so. idea of negative obedience, where Much to the experimenters’—and people are guided by an authority figure later, the public’s surprise—30 of the to commit immoral acts (Milgram, participants continued to follow the 1963). He was inspired mainly by war procedure and administer shocks until crimes, such as those that led to the 450 volts was reached. Although Nuremberg Code, and wanted to gather Milgram expressed concern for the clues about what makes a person obey wellbeing of his participants, as some so blindly – is it an innate character were showing extreme agitation, he flaw? Or, can anyone be induced to decided not to terminate the study on hurt or even kill someone else simply the basis that each prior participant due to authoritative demands? Milgram seemed to recover relatively well after devised an ingenious setup to test his session ended. Additionally, they obedience in humans (see Milgram, were each told afterward about the Student Journal of Psychological Science 8 nature of the deception and that they imagined himself or herself giving the did not actually harm anyone, plus they 450 volt shock (Milgram, 1963). were invited to discuss the study with Because he was unable to conceive of the confederate (Milgram, 1963; 1964; any harm occurring to the participants, 1965). Most participants stated in later he believed that his methods were questionnaires and interviews they ethically sound (Milgram, 1965). were glad to have participated because Finally, Milgram countered Baumrind’s they too were given insight on the third claim by saying that his results dangers of obedience and that they are all the more surprising because would evaluate their actions more they were gathered within a controlled thoroughly in the future (Milgram, setting; this effect is likely even 1963; 1965). stronger in “real world” situations Regardless of the apparent lack of (Milgram, 1965). permanent harm, Milgram’s obedience Because of the controversy instilled studies were disconcerting to many by Milgram’s studies, the APA psychologists, such as Baumrind formulated its own ethical guidelines (1964). Baumrind in particular felt that and formalized them in 1973 (Gravetter Milgram never should have deceived his & Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, 1996), participants, that he put undue although the ethics committee had pressure on them to stay (i.e., been established over 10 years prior to coercion), and that the results were not Milgram’s first obedience study in 1963 very generalizable because they took (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). The place in a laboratory setting (Baumrind, guidelines (which are continuously 1964). Milgram responded by saying being revised [APA, 2002]) consisted of that Baumrind and others likely would 10 broad standards that attempted to not have been concerned with the cover most types of research that a ethics of his study if the results had psychologist may be interested in been different (in other words, if the (Kimmel, 1996). The major themes in participants had been more these guidelines includes: a) reducing disobedient) (Milgram, 1965). Milgram harm to participants, b) obtaining had no preconception of these results informed consent, c) if deception is and it is clear that he was concerned used, it must be justified, d) ensuring for the participants, but he also decided confidentiality, and e) debriefing that it was critical to continue because participants (Gravetter & Forzano, the results were so groundbreaking and 2006). Additionally, psychologists must insightful (Milgram, 1963). His decision be aware of any federal, state and local was supported by the participants, as regulations that may impact their only 1.3% expressed negative feelings research. about their experiences (Milgram, HUMPHREYS ANALYSES OF TEAROOMS 1965). Regarding Baumrind’s second Like Milgram, Humphreys used criticism, Milgram noted that deception in his research on “tearooms” participants were paid even before the (public restrooms where men meet to session began (see Milgram, 1963; engage in sexual activities; see 1965). They all gave their informed Humphreys, 1975), but rather than consent as well. Milgram chose not to actively lie to participants, he simply reveal the true hypothesis because it withheld information from them. could have biased the results; indeed, Because the study was so intensive and of all the people he explained the study required lengthy and detailed to outside of the laboratory, not one background information, Humphreys K. Youngpeter 9 published a book on his tearoom someone knew of their secret. This research in 1970 (and republished it in highlights the second major ethical 1975 with comments on ethics). concern of this study – voluntary Essentially, his goal was to secretly participation along with confidentiality. observe men engaging in sexual acts in Even though Humphreys kept all tearooms and gather information about participants’ personal information in a them to determine what their home locked safe-deposit box and destroyed lives were like. Since tearoom activities the information after the interviews are illegal, the first ethical problem with (Humphreys, 1975), the fact that he this study involved Humphreys’ refusal used this data to track many of them to contact the police about the evidence down several months later sparked he collected. However, whether or not considerable concern (Kimmel, 1996). It his decisions were right or wrong is likely, though, that the concern was depends largely on individual based less on withholding participant interpretations; he was attempting to data for a length of time than on the study this unique population and had fact that the study focused on such a no intentions of having his participants controversial topic with legal arrested (Humphreys, 1975). ramifications. After carefully choosing adequate STANFORD’S PRISON EXPERIMENTS locations to perform his observations, Humphreys (1975) discovered that it Zimbardo and his research was difficult to be accepted in the assistants, Haney and Banks, were also tearooms; eventually, though, he was curious about criminal behavior, but able to settle into his role as their study revolved around the prison “watchqueen” and would stand by the experience (Haney et al., 1973). Similar windows of the bathrooms and alert the to Milgram’s obedience hypothesis others of approaching people or police (1963), Zimbardo and his assistants cars. He spent many hours in the wanted to know if the actions of tearooms observing behaviors (sexual prisoners and guards are the result of and otherwise) and noting descriptions personality flaws or the prison situation of the individuals he encountered, the itself. The experimenters created a make and model of each of their simulated prison environment at vehicles (if they drove), and their license Stanford University and carefully plate numbers. One year later, he selected 24 middle-class, white male changed his appearance so he would college students who scored high on not be recognized, located each assessments of stability and maturity participant’s residence, and conducted and low on crime involvement. They personal interviews with many of them. randomly assigned each person to be a The interviews revolved around a prisoner or a guard and gave them survey that was devised for a separate considerable monetary compensation study by one of Humphreys’ colleagues for each day they stayed in the study (it and included questions on family was originally planned to last for two history, socioeconomic status, personal weeks). Participants were given no health, political views, marital guidelines for how to behave, with the relationships, sex, and other topics exception of the guards who were told (Humphreys, 1975). not to use physical abuse under any Humphreys (1975) discovered that circumstances (Haney et al., 1973). many of the men involved in the Within only two days, the “tearoom trade” were happily married participants literally became the roles yet would be horrified if they realized they were assigned. The guards began Student Journal of Psychological Science 10 to act very harshly and sometimes even to not ban this type of research, but cruel to the prisoners, forcing them to rather to monitor it closely (such as by earn their privileges with good behavior; utilizing a “metaresearcher” to oversee the definitions of good behavior varied the researchers and ensure that from guard to guard, however. This everyone in the study remains strenuous situation led the prisoners to comfortable) (Zimbardo, 1973). become very passive, quiet and Zimbardo further noted that they were obedient, and they also exhibited given permission to conduct the study learned-helplessness. While no one was and that the APA later found it to be physically hurt during the study, a few within its ethical guidelines. of the prisoners displayed extreme CONCLUSION emotional reactions that warranted termination of the study after only six The arguments used against the days. After the experiment was over, methods employed by Watson and the researchers went to great lengths to Rayner (1920), Milgram (1963; 1964), inform participants of the nature of the Humphreys (1975), Haney et al., (1973) study as well as allow them to and others are valid because everyone communicate with each other about has different ways of evaluating their feelings (Zimbardo, 1973). As in benefits and risks. This discrepancy of Milgram’s studies, none of the opinions has consistently been a participants considered, in retrospect, problem with formal psychological that the study adversely impacted their research ethics because the APA ethics lives, and many found the experience to board cannot possibly predict and be beneficial. Furthermore, after outline the potential risks of every psychological examinations, none were situation an experimenter may devise. found to have suffered lingering Instead, IRBs rely on general rules and psychological problems (Zimbardo, their own subjective “best judgment” of 1973). each unique research project (APA, The Stanford prison experiment 2002; Gravetter & Forzano, 2006; elicited a large amount of concern over Kimmel, 1996). Therefore, IRBs are very ethics in psychology (Kimmel, 1996), cautious when evaluating projects that mainly because many of the utilize deception as a central concept participants became severely distressed (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). These during the study. Some argue that the cases are even more deeply scrutinized study should have been terminated if participants may become traumatized sooner or even not conducted at all, but or otherwise harmed psychologically, or as in Milgram’s case, Zimbardo was if the research would dissuade them unaware that such striking results from participating in future studies would be observed (Haney et al., 1973; (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). Zimbardo, 1973). Interestingly, Presently, researchers of psychology although the prisoners were told that in the United States must adhere to the they could withdraw from the study at guidelines outlined by the APA (see any time, only one purposefully APA, 2002). The basic principles of attempted to do so. Out of fascination, these guidelines have changed very or perhaps because they too began to little since their creation in the 1960s, accept their temporary roles, Haney but much detailed information has and colleagues chose to continue the been added (APA, 2002). But, because study until it became absolutely they are technically only guidelines and necessary to stop. Zimbardo later not strict rules, researchers are responded to criticisms by urging IRBs encouraged to read these principles K. Youngpeter 11 thoroughly and use them in tandem methods can yield unexpected yet with their own judgment to determine if useful and insightful results. their study designs are ethical. If a REFERENCES researcher can properly justify a potentially unethical study, it may pass American Psychological Association the IRB review (Gravetter & Forzano, (2002). Ethical principles of 2006). Justifications for such designs psychologists and code of conduct. can be highly variable, but they Retrieved March 18, 2008, from generally involve the potential for http://www.apa.org/ethics/code20 attaining important knowledge to help a 02.html large number of people in the Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts population or yield groundbreaking on ethics of research: After reading information to be used in future studies Milgram’s “Behavioral study of (APA, 2002). Further, researchers must obedience.” American Psychologist, always be cautious when studying 19(6), 421-423. special populations, such as infants, Fischer, B. A. (2005). A summary of prisoners, or individuals with medical important documents in the field of problems because these persons may research ethics. Schizophrenia be particularly sensitive to certain Bulletin, 32(1), 69-80. treatments (such as drugs) or Gravetter, F. J. & Forzano, L. B. (2006). controversial methods such as Research methods for the behavioral deception (Gravetter & Forzano, 2006). sciences. (2nd Ed.). Mason, OH: Clearly, the development of Thompson. psychological research ethics has been Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. difficult because on the one hand, (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a participants should be treated with simulated prison. International respect, dignity and kindness; Journal of Criminology and Penology, conversely, it is sometimes necessary to 1, 69-97. use tactics such as deception or to Hergenhahn, B. R. (2001). An instill mild psychological harm in order introduction to the history of to gather useful information about the psychology (4th Ed.). Belmont, CA: nature of cognitive processes and how Wadsworth. they influence behavior. This task is Humphreys, L. (1975). Tearoom trade: made especially difficult when Impersonal sex in public places: considering infants, special Enlarged edition with respect on populations, individuals with ethical issues. Chicago: Aldine. psychological disorders, and animals. Kimmel, A. J. (1996). Ethical issues in Even though the four aforementioned behavioral research. Cambridge: studies had particularly significant Blackwell. impacts on the development of formal Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of ethical guidelines, there are obedience. Journal of Abnormal and nonetheless hundreds (or possibly Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. thousands) of other studies that have Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study been important in the development of of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. ethics (Fischer, 2005; Gravetter & American Psychologist, 19(11), 848- Forzano, 2006; Kimmel, 1996). 852. Nonetheless, the studies by Watson and Milgram, S, (1965). Liberating effects of Rayner (1920), Milgram (1963; 1964), group pressure. Journal of Humphreys (1975), and Haney et al Personality and Social Psychology, (1973) outline how controversial 1(2), 127-134. Student Journal of Psychological Science 12

Pope, K. S. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47(3), 397-411. Skinner, B. F. (1960). John Broadus Watson, behaviorist. Science, 129, 197-198. Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford prison experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243-256.