PSY 3220 Module 3 Research Ethics Paper: Milgram, Baumrind and Ethical Design for a Low-Risk Study Example

Would They Still Obey? Lessons From Milgram for an Ethical Study of Phones and Focus

Student Name

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, Thomas Edison State University

PSY-3220: Research in Experimental Psychology

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Would They Still Obey? Lessons From Milgram for an Ethical Study of Phones and Focus

Introduction

My planned study asks participants to leave their phones in different places while they read. It seems harmless, yet it involves separating people from a device many rely on, and it works best if participants do not know the hypothesis. Before submitting my plan for review, I studied one of the most debated experiments in psychology to understand how ethical standards developed and how they apply even to low-risk research.

The Obedience Study

Milgram (1963) recruited 40 men from the New Haven area for a project advertised as research on memory and learning. Each participant, assigned the role of teacher, was instructed to give electric shocks of increasing strength to a learner, actually a confederate who received no shocks, whenever the learner made an error. The shock generator was labeled from 15 to 450 volts, with labels such as "Danger: Severe Shock." When the learner cried out and later stopped answering, the experimenter pressed on with a fixed series of scripted prods. Twenty-six of the men, nearly two thirds, went all the way to the last switch on the board. Many showed signs of extreme tension, sweating, trembling and nervous laughter, and three had uncontrollable seizures of laughter. Participants were told the truth at the end and met the unharmed learner.

The Ethical Critique

Baumrind (1964) argued that Milgram's procedures were unjustified. Participants experienced severe distress and may have learned something disturbing about themselves, harm that a brief debriefing could not undo. The deception was extensive, and participants could not give informed consent to a study whose real purpose and stresses were hidden. She questioned whether the laboratory setting, where participants trust the experimenter, allowed generalization to real-world obedience at all, and she argued that the trust between researchers and the public was damaged when participants were manipulated in this way.

An Ethical Replication

Burger (2009) asked whether people would still obey decades later and designed a replication that an ethics board could approve. He ended each session at 150 volts, because in the original research nearly everyone who passed that level kept going to the end, so that participants never experienced the most stressful part. He excluded people judged likely to be harmed by the procedure, reminded participants on three occasions that leaving would not cost them their payment and debriefed them immediately, with a clinical psychologist overseeing sessions. Seventy percent chose to go beyond 150 volts, close to the share in the matching Milgram condition.

Principles That Guide Review

Modern research ethics rests on three principles: respect for persons, honored through informed consent and special care for those who cannot easily decide for themselves; beneficence, the duty to limit harm and increase benefit, and justice, the duty to spread the burdens and benefits of research fairly. Ethics codes for psychologists permit deception only when the research has significant value, no nondeceptive alternative is available and the deception is not expected to cause pain or severe distress, and they require debriefing as soon as possible.

Consent for My Study

My consent form will explain that the study examines "study conditions and reading," that participants will read passages and answer questions and complete short questionnaires, that the session takes about 45 minutes, that participation is voluntary and they may stop at any time without losing course credit or payment and how their data will be protected. It will mention that they may be asked to place their phone in a specific location during part of the session.

Mild Deception and Its Justification

Telling participants the hypothesis, that phones on the desk reduce comprehension, could change their behavior. I will describe the purpose in general terms without stating the hypothesis, a mild omission rather than false information. This meets the conditions in ethics codes: the study has value, telling the full hypothesis would bias results and the omission is unlikely to cause distress.

Reducing Discomfort

Separation from a phone may cause mild anxiety. Participants will be told they can retrieve their phone at any time for an emergency, and anyone with caregiving or work obligations that require phone contact will be allowed to keep it in the bag condition. State anxiety will be measured, and any participant reporting high anxiety will be offered a break.

Debriefing

At the end, each participant will learn the hypothesis, why it was not disclosed and how their data will be used, and will be offered the chance to withdraw their data. A written summary and my contact information will be provided.

Privacy and Data

Data will be stored without names, using a code number, on a password-protected drive, and reports will show only combined results.

Fair Selection of Participants

The principle of justice applies to who is invited. Recruiting only from my own courses could pressure classmates to take part, so recruitment will be handled by another instructor's announcement, and credit will be available through an alternative assignment for students who decline.

Review and Oversight

Before anyone is recruited, the plan goes to the university's institutional review board. Even if the board classifies it as minimal risk, review provides an independent check on consent wording, the justification for withholding the hypothesis and data protections, the oversight Milgram's study lacked.

Limits

Ethics review standards vary across institutions. Even mild deception can affect trust if not handled well.

Conclusion

Milgram showed how much pressure an ordinary laboratory can create, Baumrind showed why distress and deception require strong justification and Burger showed that safeguards can allow important questions to be studied ethically. Clear consent, a minimal and justified omission, protections for those who need their phones and a full debriefing make my study ready for ethical review.

References

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience." American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040128

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525