Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Article 1: Griggs, R. A. (2017). Milgram’s obedience study: A contentious classic reinterpreted. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 32-37.

Summary: The author discusses new and past criticisms of Milgram’s obedience study ranging from the initial concerns about the ethics of the study to more recent concerns about “file drawer issues” and unpublished data that suggested people did not obey the experimenter. Additionally, the author presents a new interpretation of the findings in terms of engaged fellowship rather than obeying an authority.

Learning Objective: Chapter Overview

Questions to Consider

1. What are some of the old criticisms of Milgram’s study related to the ethics of his research? What are some of the new criticisms of his studies? How do these modern and past criticisms both reflect concerns about the ethics of research?
2. What are the similarities and differences between past interpretations of his findings and the reinterpretation of his findings cited by Griggs?
3. Milgram’s study is consistently cited in social psychology textbooks as evidence for obedience. Should we continue to cite research thought to be unethical as evidence for a phenomenon or should the concerns about ethics outweigh its benefit to society?
    

Article 2: Klitzman, R. (2013). How good does the science have to be in proposals submitted to Institutional Review Boards? An interview study of Institutional Review Board personnel. Clinical Trials, 10, 761-766.

Summary: The author conducted interviews with IRBs around the country to assess how IRBs make decisions and the conflicts they feel in altering scientific proposals. It discusses IRB concerns about maximizing benefits of a study, good enough versus perfect studies, and concerns about altering studies approved by other agencies.

Learning Objective: Nuts and Bolts of IRBs

Questions to Consider

1. What does it mean that IRBs feel that “the social and thus scientific benefits be maximized?”
2. What does it mean that a study is “good enough” versus “good as possible”?
3. How do IRBs feel about grant-funded studies at major grant agencies like the NIH and NSF that have been approved?
    

Article 3: Barrera, D., & Simpson, B. (2012). Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociological Methods and Research, 41(3), 383-413.

Summary: The authors describe two experiments in which participants were either deceived or not deceived and observed the effects of deception on subsequent beliefs about being deceived and behavior. The results of the studies found that the validity of the experimental results is not affected by the deception.

Learning Objective: Deception and Alternatives

Questions to Consider

1. The authors point out that arguments about deception focus less on ethics and more on its pragmatic use. What are the ethical concerns about deception? What are the pragmatic concerns? Why do you think there is not a larger ethical concern?
2. How did deception affect the beliefs of participants about deception? How did it affect their behaviors?
3. Based on their results, would you use deception in your research? Would you advise other people to use deceptions? Why or why not?