Learn Before
Based on Diana Baumrind's critique of Stanley Milgram's obedience study, explain how the researcher's justification in this case scenario misinterprets their ethical responsibilities during active research.
Case context: A researcher is conducting a study on peer pressure. Although the institutional review board approved the protocol, the first four participants tested show unexpected, severe emotional distress and start crying. The researcher notes this distress but decides to continue testing the next twenty participants without modifying the study, reasoning that they had already received ethical approval and could not have predicted this reaction initially.
Question: Based on Diana Baumrind's critique of Stanley Milgram's obedience study, explain how the researcher's justification in this case scenario misinterprets their ethical responsibilities during active research.
Sample answer: The researcher's justification misinterprets their ethical responsibilities by confusing initial ignorance with subsequent inaction. According to Baumrind, while a researcher is not blamed for failing to anticipate severe reactions beforehand, they have an active obligation to monitor unanticipated distress once it is observed in the first few subjects. The researcher's failure to ethically adjust their procedures after witnessing the distress of the first four participants constitutes an ethical failure, as they are obligated to adapt their protocol to protect subsequent participants.
Key points:
- Baumrind distinguishes between what is known beforehand versus what is observed during testing.
- A researcher is obligated to monitor unanticipated reactions once they occur in early participants.
- Ethical procedures must be adjusted once unanticipated participant distress is observed.
Rubric: Responses should explain that: 1) Under Baumrind's framework, initial ignorance of the reactions is excusable, but continuing the study without changes after observing distress is not. 2) The researcher is ethically obligated to monitor unanticipated reactions and adjust research procedures once they are observed in the first few subjects.
0
1
Tags
KPU
Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU
Related
According to Diana Baumrind's criticism of Stanley Milgram's obedience research, what was Milgram's primary ethical failure?
True or False: Diana Baumrind’s ethical critique of Stanley Milgram’s study was based on the argument that he should have modified his research procedures once he observed the unanticipated distress of his early participants.
A researcher is conducting a study on social influence. Based on Diana Baumrind's ethical critique of the Milgram obedience study, in what order should the researcher proceed after noticing unanticipated distress in the first few participants?
Diana Baumrind's critique of Stanley Milgram's study distinguishes between what a researcher can know beforehand and how they must respond to new information. Match each component of her argument to its specific role in her ethical evaluation of the obedience research.
In her ethical critique of the obedience research, what did Diana Baumrind acknowledge regarding Stanley Milgram's knowledge prior to the study?
Diana Baumrind's ethical critique of Stanley Milgram's obedience study distinguishes between initial ignorance and subsequent responsibility. Arrange the following stages of Milgram's research to reflect the logical progression of her argument.
Evaluating Milgram's obedience study through Baumrind's lens, his conduct shifted from 'unforeseeable' to 'unethical' specifically because he failed to _____ his procedures after witnessing the severe distress of his first few participants.
A graduate student is running a conformity experiment. After the first five participants show signs of acute psychological distress that was not predicted in the original protocol, she consults her faculty advisor but proceeds without making any changes to the study procedures. Based on Baumrind's principle as illustrated by the Milgram case, this decision is ethically defensible because the distress was unanticipated at the outset.
Using Baumrind's ethical framework as applied to Milgram's obedience research, match each research scenario to the moral evaluation she would assign it.
Baumrind's critique implies that a researcher who witnesses unanticipated participant distress and fails to act on that evidence bears _____ moral responsibility for subsequent harm than a researcher whose participants experienced equivalent distress before any evidence of it was available.
According to Diana Baumrind's critique of Stanley Milgram's obedience research, what was Milgram's primary ethical failure once the study was underway, and what did she acknowledge about his knowledge before the study began?
Based on Diana Baumrind's critique of Stanley Milgram's obedience study, explain how the researcher's justification in this case scenario misinterprets their ethical responsibilities during active research.
Suppose you are running an experiment on cognitive fatigue, and your first three participants experience severe, unanticipated anxiety attacks during the task. Applying Diana Baumrind's ethical critique of Milgram's study, what immediate action should you take regarding your research procedures?