Unethical Experiments (Spring)

1. The Little Albert Experiment 

      John B. Watson carried out an experiment at John Hopkins University in 1920 to study the phenomenon of psychological conditioning. Accordingly, in order to carry out the process, Watson tested on a 9-month-old subject, baby Albert, who was provoked to associate frightening sounds with the presence of a white rat that he initially admired. The constant manifestation of the horrid sound evoked a sentiment of fear for the presence of the rat and thus allow for Watson to deduce that phobias are most likely conditioned responses. 

2. Asch conformity Experiments

     This experiment, carried out at Swarthmore College in 1951, examined the behavior under the pressure of social forces. In the experiment, participants were asked to determine the length of certain lines and align them with another like. Subsequently, only one participant amongst a group was a subject and the aim was to determine whether he would conform to the wrong answers generated by the other members of the group. Sometimes we go along with the decision of the group because we convince ourselves that we are right, which is termed as informational conformity. But sometimes we conform because we are apprehensive that the group will disapprove if we are deviant. This is called normative conformity. This particular experiment reveals how people will deny what they see and submit to group pressure. It not only allowed for us to study conformity but also to examine the factors that allow it to increase and decrease accordingly.  

3. The Bystander effect 

     This experiment was conducted at Columbia University to essentially determine the difference in reaction times to certain emergencies in regards to sole individuals as compared to people in groups. It was found that people were more likely to act faster if they were to witness an unusual occurrence when by themselves as opposed to when they were with other people, as they tended to rely on others to react first. 

4. The Milgram experiment 

      

      Psychologist Stanley Milgram of Yale University carried out this experiment in order to further understand the nature of those who committed atrocities of the Holocaust. Accordingly, the subjects were given the power to administer increasing voltage shocks to "students" who did not respond correctly to questions that they were asked to pose as their "teachers.” Accordingly, it was found that under the pressure of an authoritative figure majority of those involved in the experiment were willing to administer the most fatal voltage shock as a means of submitting to the authoritative figure which suggests that perhaps those directly involved in the Holocaust acted against their conscience and were in a sense forced to follow through with the demands of the authoritative figures at the time. 

5. Harlow's monkey experiments

      Harlow, through his experiment, observed the notion of infant dependency as he replaced the real mother of a baby monkey with two new mothers— a nursing wire mother, and a cloth mother. Accordingly, Harlow sought to observe which "mother" the baby monkey would seek contact comfort in and the results were indicative of the cloth mother holding a superior position to the wire mother in this case. Moreover, Harlow also introduces a source of intimidation to frighten the baby monkey and again drew out the same results whereby the monkey seemed to be comforted by the cloth mother in contrast to the wired mother. 

6. Learned helplessness

      In 1965, Martin Seligman and his team, as a means of understanding perceive control, used dogs as subjects in their experiment. Accordingly, the premise of the experiment consisted of observing how dogs would learn to dodge administered shocks by jumping hurdles. Nevertheless, after learning to avoid the shocks, the dogs were harnessed and randomly administered unavoidable shocks. Accordingly, when the same dogs were placed in a box the next day, they did not even try to avoid the shocks which could have easily been dodged which corresponds to learned helplessness as they were psychologically stuck in the unavoidable administered shocks sphere. 

7. Robbers cave experiment

      

      In the summer of 1954, Muzafer Sherif carried out this experiment in order to learn about group dynamics in the face of conflict. Subsequently, a group of adolescent boys were brought into a simulated summer camp environment and the group was split into two. The groups would only encounter each other when involved in competitive activities. However, the psychologists then administered situations whereby the groups were required to work in union to accomplish the larger goal and this experiment revealed how the groups united as one in the face of a conflict despite initial disparaging group dynamics. 

8. The monster study 

      Through this experiment, Wendell Johnson endeavored to determine the cause of stuttering at University of Iowa in 1939. He did so by attempting to turn orphans into stutterers. Nevertheless, at the end of his experiment, as a part of which half of a 22 children group received positive teaching whereas the other negative rebukes, none of the orphans became stutterers. Nonetheless, the children who were exposed to negative rebukes undeniably displayed signs of low self-esteem, which is a common characteristic in stutterers. 

9. Blue eyed versus brown-eyed students

      

      Jane Elliott, through her experiment in 1968, aimed to acquaint her elementary school students with first hand experience of discrimination. Subsequently, she divided the class into two groups: blue eyed vs. brown-eyed students. Moreover, one group was legitimized as superior to the other and was even treated in that manner to authenticate the experience. Furthermore, the roles were reversed halfway through so that each individual could experience the same prejudices. 

10. The Stanford prison experiment

      In the Stanford prison experiment, psychologist Philip Zimbardo wanted to understand the dynamics of group behavior and the superficial power that was outlined by certain authorities. In order to explore this relationship, Zimbardo simulated a prison in Stanford University and essentially designated randomly the roles of officer/guard and prisoner to the participants in the subject. It was noted that with the label of the guard was entailed a sense of formidable authority that brought about great brutality that was endured by the prisoners as the inferior race in the environment. Thus, through this experiment, Zimbardo revealed how the external circumstances than an individual is immersed in heavily influences his or her actions. 

QUESTIONS:

Reason

Can we assume that human beings are rational animals?

No we cannot assume that human beings are rational animals as rationality often becomes blurred when an individual is exposed to perturbing environments that may provoke them to defy their conscience and act differently to what they may normally.

Emotion

How can a social scientist avoid becoming emotionally involved?

For a social scientist to avoid becoming emotionally involved, he or she must primarily not be engaged as a participant in the experiment being carried out. Furthermore, the participants involved should not be in close associations with the social scientist to increase the probability of diminished emotional investment.

Ethics

     

      How do ethical factors limit experiments?

      Ethical factors in contemporary times limit experiments as the nature of an experiment need be cleared as ethical for a social scientist to proceed with it. Furthermore, the limiting aspect comes in when considering the fact that there is so much knowledge that can be extracted if ethical boundaries were not imposed on experiments. For instance, the manner an individual reacts to certain gestures etc. 

Language:

Can questionnaire be written in a neutral language?

Yes, a questionnaire can be produced in a neutral language in regards to whether a perfect balance is struck in terms of the options listed in the questionnaire. For instance the reaction of an individual to a specific food should be presented on a scale of bad middle good as opposed to good very good excellent, as the diversity in options allows for the questionnaire to be donned with a more neutral nature.