Milgram’s obedience study generated a great deal of controversy regarding its ethical implications.? It is important to be aware of ethical questions raised by the researc

Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience ."

Psychology in Action

SOME THOUGHTS ON ETHICS OF RESEARCH: AFTER READING MILGRAM'S " BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE"

DIANA BAUMRIND

1 .. , 111111, oJ H"""'" Deodop,n,,.,, Univrrri11 oJ CoU/Drnio, B,rl,eley

CERTAIN problema in psychological research re­ quire the experimenter to balance his career and scientific interests against the interests of his

prospective subjects. When such occailions arise the experimenter's stated objective frequently is to do the best pos5ible job with the least powble harm to his subject.a. The experimenter seldom perceives in more positive terms an indebtedness to the subject for his services, perba.ps because tbe detAcbment which his functions require prevents appreciation of the subject as an individual.

Yet a debt does exist, even when the subject's rea­ son for volunteering includes course credit or mone­ tary gain. Often a subject participates unwillingly in order to satisfy a course requirement. These require­ ments are of questionable merit ethically, and do not alter the experimenter's responsibility to the subject.

Most experimental conditions do not cause the sub­ jects pain or indignity, and are sufficiently interesting or challenging to present no problem of an ethical na­ ture to the experimenter. But where the experimental conditions expose the subject to loss of dignity, or offer him nothing of value, then the experimenter is obliged to consider the reasons why the subject volun­ teered and to reward him accordingly.

The subject's public motives for volunteering in­ clude having an enjoyable or stimulating experience, acquiring knowledge, doing the experimenter a favor which may some day be reciprocated, and making a contribution to ac:ience, These motives can be taken into account rather easily by the experimenter who is willing to spend a few minutes with the subject after­ wards to thank him for his participation, answer his questions, reassure him that he did well, and chat with him a bit. Most volunteers also have less mani­ fest, but equally legitimate, motives. A subject may be seeking an opportunity to have contact with, be noticed by, and perhaps confide in a person with psy­ chological training. The dependent altitude of most subjects toward the experimenter is an artifact of the experimental situation as well as an expression of some anh;-.rh' n,1,NnnAI n~ •vtt,.mt. ~t tl,.,. fim~ fb ,.v vllnn.

The dependent, obedient attitude assumed by most subjects in the experimental setting ia appropriate to that situation. The "game" is defined by the experi­ menter and he mattes the rules. By volunteering, tbe subject agrees inipllcitly to assume a posture of trust and obedience. While the experimental conditions leave him exposed, the subject has the right to assume that his security and self-esteem will be protected.

There are other profession3l situations In which one member-the patient or client~cts help and pro• tectioo from the othcr:–the physician or psychologist. But the interpersonal relationship between experi• menter and subject additionally has unique featu res which are likely to provoke initial an:riety in the wb­ ject. The laboratory is unfamiliar as a setting and the rules of behavior ambiguous compared to a clinician's office. Because or the anxiety and passivity generated by the setting, the subject is more prone to behave in an obedient, suggestible manner in the laboratory than elsewhere. Therefore, the laboratory .I.! not tbe place to study degree of obedience or &uggestibility, as a func tion of a particular experimental condition, since the base line for these phenomena as found in the labo­ ratory is probably much higher than in most other settings. Thus experiments in which the relationship to the experimenter as an authority is used as an in• dependent condition are imperfectly designed for the same reason that they are prone to injure the subjects involved. They disregard the special quality of trust and obedience with which the subje<:t appropriately regards the experimenter.

Other phenomena which present ethical decisions, unlilr.e those mentioned above, can be reproduced suc­ cessfully in the laboratory. Failure experience, con­ formity to peer judgment, and isolation are among such phenomena. In these cases we can expect the experimenter to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent the subject from leaving the laboratory more humiliated, insecure, alienated, or hostile than when he arrived. To gu:irantee that an especially senUsitivc subject leaves a stressful experimental ex­ ,,,,_.,.;,..nr~ ;n th_,. n rnn,.r cbtP c:nmP1tim11e P'#ll"mir•• en.-

https://06201lldj- mp03 -y-hltps -psycnet-apa -org.prx- keiser. l irn.net/fulltext/1965 -00210- 001.pdf

9/13/21, 2:12 PM

Page 1 of 6

Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience ." 9/13/21, 2:12 PM

teer. cial clinical training. But usually an attitude of com-

421

https://06201lldj- mp03 -y-hltps -psycnet-apa -org.prx- keiser.lirn.net/fulltext/1965 -00210- 001.pdf Page 2 of 6

Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience." 9/13/21, 2:12 PM

422 AWEIUCAN PSYCHOLOGIST

passion, respect, gratitude, and common sense will suffice, and no amount of clinical training will substi­ tute. The subject has the right to expect that the psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for bis welfare, and lhe personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effec­ tively.

Unfortunately, the subject is not always treated with the respect be deserves. It has become more common­ place in sociopsychological laboratory studies to ma­ nipulate, embarrass, and discomfort subjects. Al times the insult to the subject's sensibilities extends to the journal reader when the results are reported. Mil­ gram's (1963) study is a case in point. The following is Milgram's abstract of his experiment:

This article describes a. procedure for tbc study o[ de­ structive obedience in the la.boratory. It consists of order­ ing a naive S to adminuter Increasingly more severe pun­ ishment to a victim in the context of a lcarnloi experi­ ment. Punishment ls administered by means of a shock generator with 30 graded switches ranging from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The victim is a con­ federate of E. The primary dependent variable is the maximum ahock the S Is willing to administtr hc{ore be refu,es to continue further. 26 Ss obeyed the experimental commands fully, and admfnlstered I.he hl&heot shock on the generator. 14 Ss broke off the experiment at some point after the victim protested and refused to provide further answers. The procedure created ci:trcme levels ol nervous tension in some Ss, Profuse sweating, lrcrublillK, and stuttering were typical expressions of this emotional disturbance. One unexpected sign of teruion-yet to be uplalned-was the regular occurrence of nervous laughter, which in aome Ss developed Into uncontrollable seizur . The variety of Interesting behavioral dynamics observed in the experiment, the reality of the situation for the S, and the possibility of parametric variation within the framework of the procedure, point 10 the fruitfulness o! further study [p. 371].

The detached, objective manner in which Milgram reports the emotional disturbance suffered by his sub­ ject contrasts sharply with bis graphic account of that disturbance. Following are two other quotes describ­ ing the effects on his subjects of the experimental con­ ditions:

I observed a mature and Initially poised businessman enter lhe laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who wu rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands, At one point he pushed his fist into bis forehead and mut­ tered': "Oh God, let's stop it." And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end [p. 377] .

stuuer, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails Into their flesh , These were characteristic rather than excep­ tional responses to the experiment.

One sign o{ tension was the regular occurrence of ncrv­ Olll laughing fits. Fourteen o{ the .«l subjects showed definite signs of nervous laughter and smiling. The laugh­ ter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. On one occasion we observed a sci%tue so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the ~riment . . . [p. 37S].

Milgram docs slate that,

After the interview, procedureo were undertaken to assure that the subject would leave the laboratory in a state of well being. A {riendly tte0nciliation was arranged be­ tween the subject and the victim, and an effort was made to reduce any tensions that arose u a result o{ the ex­ periment [p, J 74] .

It would be interesting to know what sort of pro­ cedures could dissipate the type of emotional disturb­ ance just described. In view of the effects on subjects, traumatic to a degree which Milgram himself considers nearly unprecedented in sociopsychological e.xperi­ ments, his casual assurance that lhese tensions were dissipated before the subject left the laboratory is un­ convincing.

What could be the rational basis for such a posture of indifference? Perhaps Milgram supplies the answer himself when he partially explains lhe subject's de­ structive obedience as follows , "Thus they assume that lhe discomfort caused the victim is momentary, while the scientific gains resulting from the experiment are enduring [p . .378) ." Indeed such a rationale might suffice to justify lhe means used to achieve his end if that end were of inestimable value lo humanity or were not itself transfonned by the means by which it was attained.

The behavioral psychologist is not in as good a po­ sition to objectify his faith in the significance of his work as medical colleagues at points of breakthrough, His experimental situations are not sufficiently accurate models of real-life experience; his sampling techniques arc seldom of a scope which would justify the meaning with which he would like to endow bis results; and these results are hard to reproduce by colleagues with opposing theoretical views. Unlike the Sabin vaccine, for example, the concrete benefit to humanity of his particular piece of work, no matter how competently handled, cannot justify the risk that real harm will be done to the subject. I am not speaking of physical discomfort, inconvenience, or experimental deception per sc, but of permanent harm, however slight. I do regard the emotional disturbance described by Mil• ""effl ea nnf•nt·imtlu l,,a"""f',1l l-re,1c.• ;t ,.,-.nlA _.;Ju

https://06201lldj- mp03 -y-hltps -psycnet-apa -org.prx- keiser.lirn.net/fulltext/1965 -00210- 001.pdf Page 3 of 6

Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience ." 9/13/21, 2:12 PM

ui a .uuge numue.- 01 caxs we aegn:e 01 u:D.J.lon rcacneu extrem .. that are rarely seen In sodopsychologlcal labora­ tory 1tud1H. Subjects were observed lo 1wut, tremble,

r – —-., – ··-~- —— .. .. —·- – ·, effect an alteration in the subject's self-image or abil­ ity to trwt adult authorities in the future. It is po-

https://06201lldj- mp03 -y-hltps -psycnet-apa -org.prx- keiser.lirn.net/fulltext/1965 -00210- 001.pdf Page 4 of 6

Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience."

PSYCHOLOGY lN ACTION 423

tentially harmful to a subject to commit, in the course of an experiment, acts which he himself considers un­ worthy, particularly when he has been entrapped into committing such acts by an individual he has reason to trust. The subject's personal responsibility for his actions is not erased because the experimenter reveals to hlm the mcnns which he used to stlmulat.e these actions. The subject realizes that he would have hurt the victim if the current were on. The rc.ilization that he also made a fool of himself by accepting the experi­ ment.al set results in additional loss of self-esteem. Moreover, the subject finds it difficult to express his anger outwardly after the experimenter in a self-ac­ ceptant but friendly manner reveals the hoax.

A fairly intense corrective interpersonal experience is indicated wherein the subject admits 111d accepts his responsibility for his own actions, and at the same time gives vent to his hurt and anger at being fooled . Perhaps an experience as distressing as the one de­ scribed by Milgram can be integrated by the subject, provided that careful thought is given to the matter. The propriety of such experimentation ls still in ques­ tion even if such a rep:uational experience were forth­ coming. Without it I would expect a naive, sensitive subject to remain deeply hurt and anxious for some time, and a sophisticated, cynical subject to become even more alienated and distrustful.

In addition the experimental procedure used by Mil­ gram does not appear suited to the objectives of the study because it does not take into account the spe­ cial quality of the set which the subject has in the e:r­ perimental situation. Milgram is concerned with a very important problem, namely, the social conse­ quences of destructive obedience. He says,

Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded, daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same efllclency as the manufacture of appliances. These Inhumane policies may have originated In Ute n1lnd of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale If a very large number of persoru obeyed orderJ [p. 3 71 J.

But the parallel between authority-subordinate rda­ tionships in Hitler's Germany and in Milgram's labo­ ratory is unclear. In the former situation the SS man or member of the German Officer Corps, when obey­ ing orders to slaughter, had no reason to think of his superior officer as benignly disposed towards himself or their victims. The victims were perceived as sub­ human and not worthy of consideration. The subordi­ nate officer was an agent in a great cause. He did not need to feel guilt or conflict because within his frame of reference he was acting rightly.

It is obvious from Milgram's own descriptions that

quences of these two disparate but appropriate atti­ tudes. Their distress may have resulted from shock at what the experimenter was doing to them as well as from what they thought they were doing to their vic­ tims. In any CaJe there is not a convincing parallel between the phenomena studied by Mllgram and de­ structive obedience as that conc.ept would apply to the subordinate-authority relatioosbip demonstrated in Hltler Germany, If the experiments were conducted "outside of New HAven and without any visible ties to the university," I would still question their validity on similar although not identical grounds. In addition, I would question the representativeness of a sample of subjects who would voluntarily participate within a noninstitutional setting.

In summary, the experimental objectives of the psy­ chologist are seldom incompatible with the subject's ongoing state of well being, provided that the experi­ menter is willing to take the subject's motives and in­ terests into consideration when planning his methods and correctives. Section 4b in Elhkal Standards of Psyeholoiisu (APA, undated) reads in part :

Only when a problem Is significant and can be in­ vc.stlgated In no other way, is the psychologist Justified In exposing human aubJ~t.4 to emotional stress or other pos­ sible harm. In condueting such research, the psychologist m~t scrloualy consider the pouiblllty of harmful after­ effect., and should he prepared to remove them as soon u permitted by the design of the uperimenl. Where the danger of serious altereffecu exists, research should be con­ ducted only when the subjcctJ or their responsible agent.4 are fully Informed of this possibility and volunteer never­ theless [p. 12].

From the subject's point of view procedures which in­ volve loss of dignity, self-esteem, and lrust in rational authority are probably most harmful in the long run and require the most thoughtfully planned reparations, if engaged in at all. The public image of psychology as a profession is highly related lo our own actions, and some of these actions are changeworthy. It is important that as research psychologists we protect our ethical sensibili ties rather than adapt our personal standards to include as appropriate the kind of in­ dignitie5 to which Milgram's subjects were exposed. I would not like to see experiments such as Milgram's proceed unless the subjects were fully informed of the dangers of serious aftereffects and his correctives were clearly shown to be effective in restoring their state of well being.

REFERENCES

AlLDlCAN P8YCllOLOOICAL AssocIAnoN. Ethical Standards of Psychologists : A summary oI ethical principles. ,., __ ,._f_.-,, _ _ ~ ,… – • .,. ___ …… . …

https://06201lldj- mp03 -y-hltps -psycnet-apa -org.prx- keiser.lirn.net/fulltext/1965 -00210- 001.pdf

9/13/21, 2:12 PM

Page 5 of 6

Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience ."

tims and did trust the experimenter, and that their distressful conllict w:u generated in part by the conse-

Mn.cRAM, S. Bdiavionl study of obedience. J. ob11orm, J()I;. PJyeltol., 1963, 67, 371- 378.

https://06201lldj- mp03 -y-hltps -psycnet-apa -org.prx- keiser.lirn.net/fulltext/1965 -00210- 001.pdf

9/13/21, 2:12 PM

Page 6 of 6