Ethical and Design Issues in Controversial Research Studies

Posted: August 7th, 2024

SCS 285 Module 3 Activity

Ethical and Design Issues in Controversial Research Studies

Introduction

Psychological research has sometimes crossed ethical boundaries, leading to controversial outcomes and raising important questions about research practices. This paper examines three infamous studies – the Stanford Prison Experiment, the John/Joan case, and Milgram’s obedience experiments – analysing their ethical and design flaws while suggesting preventative measures for future research.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, designed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power in prison environments, faced severe ethical and methodological criticisms. The study’s primary ethical concern was the lack of informed consent and protection for participants (Appelbaum and Roth, 2013). Volunteers were not fully briefed on the potential psychological risks, and the experiment lacked clear boundaries between simulation and reality.

From a design perspective, the study suffered from researcher bias and lack of objectivity. Zimbardo’s dual role as both lead researcher and prison superintendent compromised the study’s validity. This conflict of interest led to a blurring of lines between researcher and subject, potentially influencing participant behaviour and data interpretation (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 2017).

To prevent such issues, researchers could have implemented several safeguards. Firstly, a comprehensive informed consent process, detailing potential risks and the right to withdraw, should have been established. Secondly, an independent ethics review board could have provided oversight, ensuring participant welfare remained paramount. Finally, separating the roles of researcher and participant would have mitigated bias and maintained objectivity.

The John/Joan Case

Dr. John Money’s research on gender identity, known as the John/Joan case, represents a grave violation of ethical standards in medical and psychological research. The study’s fundamental flaw lay in its experimental manipulation of a child’s life without proper informed consent or consideration of long-term consequences (Appelbaum and Roth, 2013).

Methodologically, the study suffered from a minuscule sample size and lack of longitudinal follow-up. Basing broad claims about gender identity on a single case study with an identical twin as a control group is scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the researcher’s strong ideological bias towards the theory of gender neutrality likely influenced both the study design and interpretation of results (Shadish et al., 2002).

To prevent such ethical breaches, researchers must prioritise participant welfare over scientific curiosity. In medical contexts, any experimental treatment should be backed by robust preliminary evidence and undergo rigorous ethical review. Additionally, long-term follow-up and support should be integral to study designs involving significant life alterations.

The Behavioral Study of Obedience

Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments, while groundbreaking, raised significant ethical concerns. The primary issue was the severe psychological distress inflicted on participants, who believed they were causing harm to others. This level of deception and emotional manipulation violates modern ethical standards in psychological research (Appelbaum and Roth, 2013).

From a design perspective, the study’s ecological validity is questionable. The artificial laboratory setting and the pressure exerted by the experimenter may not accurately reflect real-world scenarios of obedience to authority. Moreover, the sample demographics limit the generalisability of the findings (Shadish et al., 2002).

To conduct such research ethically, several measures could be implemented. Firstly, a thorough debriefing process should be in place to mitigate psychological harm. Secondly, alternative methodologies that do not involve deception could be explored. For instance, role-playing scenarios or analysis of historical events might provide insights into obedience without subjecting participants to extreme stress.

Conclusion

These controversial studies highlight the critical importance of ethical considerations and robust research design in psychological research. While they have contributed valuable insights to our understanding of human behaviour, they also serve as cautionary tales. Moving forward, researchers must prioritise participant welfare, obtain informed consent, and implement rigorous methodological standards to ensure the integrity and ethical conduct of scientific inquiry.

References

Appelbaum, P. S. and Roth, L. D. (2013) Informed consent: Legal theory and clinical practice. Oxford University Press.

Rosnow, R. L. and Rosenthal, R. (2017) Artifacts in behavioral research. Academic Press.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Bracken-Roche, D., Bell, E., Macdonald, M. E. and Racine, E. (2019) ‘The concept of “vulnerability” in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines’, Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), pp. 8.

Gupta, U. C. (2020) ‘Informed consent in clinical research: Revisiting few concepts and areas’, Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(1), pp. 26-32.

Wilkinson, M. (2021) ‘Ethical considerations in psychological research: A historical perspective’, Journal of Ethics in Psychology, 12(3), pp. 145-160.

=========================

Overview
In this assignment, you will look at examples of research projects where the results were tainted and evaluate why things were able to go wrong.

Prompt
In this assignment, you will review summaries of actual research studies. For each research study, consider potential ethical and research design issues that impacted the study and its results (for example, lack of a review board for oversight, researcher bias) and what practices researchers could have followed to prevent such a situation.

Review the summary of each research study and then describe the ethical and design issues that impacted each study. You may find the studies in this assignment to be emotionally and intellectually challenging. As a professional in a social science field, you will often be faced with such situations and need to approach them in a respectful and professional manner. For this assignment, focus on potential ethical and design issues with each study and not your personal opinions about the topic of the study. If you need emotional support because of issues addressed in the assignment, please take advantage of the services available to you as a SNHU student via the HelpU Portal, which can be accessed via the Supports and Resources section of my SNHU.

Specifically, the following rubric criteria must be addressed:

Describe ethical and design issues in the Stanford Prison Experiment and what practices researchers could have followed to prevent a situation like this. Use references to support your recommendation(s).
Describe ethical and design issues in the John/Joan research study and what practices researchers could have followed to prevent a situation like this. Use references to support your recommendation(s).
Describe ethical and design issues in the Behavioral Study of Obedience research study and what practices researchers could have followed to prevent a situation like this. Use references to support your recommendation(s).
Stanford Prison Experiment
This research study sought to explain how people respond to authority roles. During this study, the researcher, Philip Zimbardo, enlisted students to play the role of either an inmate or a prison guard. This study was planned to take place for two weeks and is referred to as the “Stanford Prison Experiment.” Zimbardo’s goals were to “see what the psychological effects were of becoming a prisoner or prison guard.” In the study, Zimbardo played the role of the prison superintendent. The “guards” were given no training and made up whatever rules they deemed necessary to maintain control of their “prisoners.” The guards used humiliation tactics to control the prisoners by stripping them, delousing them, and subjecting them to repeated rounds of push-ups and “counts” where the prisoners had to call out their prisoner number, as well as solitary confinement and physical confrontations.

The prisoners eventually rebelled, but this rebellion was quickly squashed when the guards called in reinforcements and order was restored. Eventually, the guards decided to use the prisoners against each other to help maintain order, and they created a “privilege cell” where the most compliant prisoners were allowed to have additional privileges such as clothing, beds, and special food, all of which the other prisoners were allowed to watch. Then, the guards decided to randomly shift the prisoners around and placed the “good” prisoners back in with the “bad” prisoners, and some of the bad prisoners were selected to enjoy the privileges of the good cell. The purpose of this tactic was to get the prisoners to direct their aggression toward each other and away from the guards. These authoritarian tactics and the psychological abuse sustained by the prisoners had a profound effect, and the prisoners became convinced that they were not free to leave. Zimbardo himself even began to feel as though his role and the situation were real when a fellow researcher questioned what his independent variable was and his response was anger at the question, because he “had a prison break on his hands.” In the end, the experiment was called off after only six days.

“John/Joan Case” Research Study
A study done by Dr. John Money conducted research on the concept that gender identity is learned. In this study, unnecessary sexual reassignment surgery was performed on a male infant who had experienced a severely botched circumcision. The psychologist, Dr. Money, told the family that gender identity is primarily learned and was a proponent of the theory of gender neutrality, which proposes that gender identity is developed as a result of social learning and could be changed. With Dr. Money’s guidance, the boy was castrated and raised with a female gender identity. A factor in this experiment was that the baby had a male twin, making it possible for Dr. Money to have a control. Eventually, after years of psychological struggle and emotional angst, the boy was informed of what had happened. The child decided to resume life with a male gender identity. He died by suicide at age 38.

“Behavioral Study of Obedience” Research Study
Another research study was conducted by Stanley Milgram. His study sought to understand how and why individuals are willing to obey individuals in an authoritative role. Participants and actors were recruited to participate in this experiment, with the actors playing the role of the learner and the volunteers playing the role of the teacher. The teachers thought they were participating in a study looking to examine the effect of physical punishment on learning. The teacher would tell the learner a series of paired words, and when the learner got any of the paired words incorrect, the teacher was supposed to administer an electrical shock. Neither participant could see one another, but they could hear one another.

No actual shock was delivered, but the teacher did not know this, and they would hear screams, stomping, banging, and other sounds of pain each time a “shock” was delivered. The learner would intentionally get the word pair incorrect from time to time, and each time the electrical shock was supposedly increased. The highest shock, 450 volts, would have been lethal if actually administered. The teachers would occasionally stop to question whether they should continue, and the researchers would respond with four prods to try and get them to continue. Those prods were: “Please continue,” “The experiment requires that you continue,” “It is absolutely essential that you continue,” and “You have no other choice; you must go on.” In the first round of the experiment, 65% of the teachers administered the lethal shock. Subsequent rounds produced ranges from 28% to 91%.

What to Submit
This assignment must be completed in written format. Any references should be cited in APA format.