Ethics – do ends justify means?
by Research Methods & Statistics
When the word ‘ethics’ is mentioned, the majority of people conjure up an idea of a set of rules used for distinguishing between right and wrong, similar to the Ten Commandments (‘Thou Shalt not kill’) This is the most common way of defining ‘ethics’; norms for behaviour distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable.
Most individuals learn concepts of ethics whilst growing up in a social setting such as school. Due to the exposure of ethics from a young age as part of everyday life it is tempting to view them as simple common sense. However, if knowing the difference between right and wrong is nothing more than basic common sense then why are there so many ethical debates within society, especially in psychological research?
Debates occur in psychological research because ethics are extremely intricate and following all ethical procedures can sometimes diminish an experiment’s results. The real question that needs to be asked is ‘Do the ends justify the means?’ So, do the results from an experiment have so many positive applications within society that we can forget researchers didn’t stick to the BPS guidelines*? Well, consider the following example; Sherif (1935)** tested if people use the behaviour of others to decide what to do when uncertain. In a dark room participants focused on a single spotlight and were asked how far the light moved. They completed the same task again however, in groups of three instead of alone. He found individuals changed answers from when alone to be similar to each other in groups of three. Sherif’s research is very useful, highlighting the power of the group to influence behaviour and therefore, has many applications within social psychology. However, Sherif didn’t gain informed consent and therefore broke code of conduct within the BPS guidelines. The participants were not made aware of exactly what the experiment involved and therefore did not freely choose whether they wished to participate. Informed consent was not gained because if participants were told too much about the experiment it would interfere with the results, this refers to demand characteristics. These can threaten both internal and external validity by influencing how participants react in the experiment. So, do the ends of this research justify the means? The answer is yes, the results are very useful and no participants were hurt. Although some may consider the research unethical, the psychological well being of participants was not affected and after all this is one of the most important ethical principles to obey.
However, other social psychological research into obedience can be seen as extremely unethical such as Milgram (1963)***. He aimed to investigate how far a person was prepared to go to obey an authority figure. Participants believed they were administrating electric shocks to learners. This research raised many ethical issues. Firstly, participants did not give informed consent as they were lied to, thinking they were taking part in a learning task not an obedience task. Secondly, they were filmed without consent causing issues of confidentiality. The most shocking misconduct refers to the withdrawal from the experiment. Although physically the participants could, there was a strong social pressure on them to stay. Also it is important to note the prompts used by researchers such as ‘you have no alternative, you must go on’ which are VERY unethical. Even more shockingly, participants were put under immense psychological distress and experienced symptoms close to a nervous break down! This emotional scarring lasted for months and even years after the study therefore, questioning Milgram’s experiment ethics is a necessary part of psychology. In this example, considering the serve distress during and after the experiment the ends certainly do NOT justify the means of research.
So to conclude a number of factors need to be considered before criticizing research for being unethical. 1, do the ends justify the means of the research? 2, which ethical conduct was broke? If consent was not gained does did it really matter? However, if participant’s emotional state was diminished then obviously the research should be scrutinised.
* http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/ethics-standards/ethics-standards
** http://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html
***http://www.nickoh.com/emacs_files/psychology/ss_dir/milgram1963.html
psychjs1 
This was a well thought out and interesting blog post, and I admire you for deciding to write on a different topic – giving us all a chance to think about a new and important subject. Your use of contrasting examples – one where the ends justified the means, and one where they didn’t – was excellent and provided a balanced argument. However, as the blog is also meant to be understood by people who lack a psychology background, you might perhaps have given a bit more detail as to what Milgram’s study entailed. All psychology students know of the study, but others reading your post would be unaware of the fact that further deception was used (the non-existent shocks were “applied” to actors etc.). For your argument to have a maximum impact, it is sometimes necessary to be more specific. Otherwise, I truly thought this was a well-judged post.
Well hello darling.
Just going to say that I liked your topic, ethics is always good to get some debate going! So here we go!!
The Milgram study you used actually told a lot about human nature. Milgram himself wanted to know whether or not people who said “i was just obeying orders” during the horrors of WW2 were actually telling the truth, or whether they could say no and be nice people. Clearly, as the study showed – they could not be nice people (bad times.)
So, this study did some great work! Because of Milgram’s shocking (sorry, pardon the pun) experiment, we can see now the extent that people will obey orders, regardless of what they believe is wrong. This has massive repercussions for the real world. I always think of the napalm attacks in Vietnam. Who in the right mind could do that? Who could drop an atomic bomb on Japan?! Well, thanks to Milgram we can see that perhaps they felt they were just obeying orders. They’re still (enter strong word here), but at least we can begin to understand their thought processes.
In this case then, this study more than justifies the means.
Although, don’t get me started on animal research. I’ll never believe that is justified and can go on for hours.
Abby xx
I like how you’ve chosen ethics this week, like abby said it is good for getting a debate going.
Have you considered Zimbardo’s (1971) experiment? Do the ends justify the means of this? Personally I don’t really think so. Whilst his experiment suggested that situations can hold more responsibility for peoples actions, rather than the people themselves it was highly unethical. Participants experienced depression, paranoia, and learned helplessness. Within just a couple of days the participants that were assigned the role of prisoner began to refer to themselves as their number and not their name, suggesting that they’re mental state was becoming clouded. The study was highly unethical by todays ethical guidelines and now an experiment such of this would probably not be allowed to run. Several of the ethical guidelines were broke here, firstly participants would have been deceived about the studies true intent, which means they would not have given informed consent. Participants mental states were also affected as they began to experience depression.
So for this study, the ends don’t really justify the means. Zimbardo only found something which we can see everyday – people act differently dependent on what situation they are in.
[…] https://psychjs1.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/ethics-do-ends-justify-means/ […]
[…] https://psychjs1.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/ethics-do-ends-justify-means/#comment-10 […]
Firstly, I would like to point out that Milgram did not actually break any ethical guidelines by undertaking this research into social influence since the APA didn’t introduce their ethical guidelines until 1973 – a decade after the study was conducted. Also, you mentioned how withdrawal was difficult, which of course was highly unethical. However, a third of the participants successfully withdrew from the study, illustrating that withdrawal couldn’t have been that problematic. Milgram fully debriefed his participants and was, in fact the first to formalize structured debriefing.
I personally believe that although there was harm to some participants, the ends of this historical research do justify the means. Out of all the participants involved, only 1.3% stated that they were sorry to have taken part. Milgram was even awarded a prize in 1965 for the most outstanding contribution of research for the Advancement of Science. It outlines how easy it is for individuals to be manipulated by authority figures.
So, although I agree with you that in modern society today it is extremely important for ethical guidelines to be followed, I disagree that the ends did not justify the means in Milgram’s study into obedience since Milgram did not actually break any laws or guidelines. This study into obedience is often thought to have produced one of the most important findings in psychology!
Woah woah woah. I disagree with that in part. Just because APA hadn’t compiled it’s ethical register doesn’t justify it’s carrying out. Moral reasoning should have been present when the methodology of the experiment was being carried out. It should be common nature to ensure the participants aren’t harmed in such a blatant way. However, I do think the experiment makes a good case study, and we did achieve some marvellous findings from the research, but I think we should only acquiring knowledge through natural occurrences as case studies, like the incidences at Guantanamo Bay or even WW2.
[…] 1. https://psychjs1.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/ethics-do-ends-justify-means/#comment-15 […]