Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Ethics, deception, and 'Those Milgram experiments'.

C D Herrera1

  • 1Philosophy Department, Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA. Herrerach@mail.montclair.edu

Journal of Applied Philosophy
|May 2, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Protection of human subjects and scientific progress: can the two be reconciled?

The Hastings Center report·2006
Same author

The search for meaningful comparisons in boxing and medical ethics.

Journal of medical ethics·2004
Same author

Two arguments for 'covert methods' in social research.

The British journal of sociology·2004
Same author

Universal compulsory service in medical research.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2003
Same author

Research ethics at the empirical side: Research Ethics: A Psychological Approach, edited by Barbara Stanley, Joan Sieber, and Gary Melton; Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology, by James Korn.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2001
Same author

Reconsidering the pseudo-patient study.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2001
Same journal

The Balanced View of the Value of Conscience.

Journal of applied philosophy·2024
Same journal

Compulsory Vaccination and Nozickian Rights.

Journal of applied philosophy·2023
Same journal

The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too.

Journal of applied philosophy·2023
Same journal

Self-Ownership and the Duty to Assist.

Journal of applied philosophy·2023
Same journal

Must We Vaccinate the Most Vulnerable? Efficiency, Priority, and Equality in the Distribution of Vaccines.

Journal of applied philosophy·2022
Same journal

The Ethics of Killing in a Pandemic: Unintentional Virus Transmission, Reciprocal Risk Imposition, and Standards of Blame.

Journal of applied philosophy·2022
See all related articles

Critics question the ethics of deception in psychological studies, particularly Milgram's obedience experiments. This analysis examines the debate, suggesting both critics and researchers may overstate their cases regarding deception's harm and benefits.

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Ethics in Research

Background:

  • Deception in psychological experiments, particularly Stanley Milgram's obedience studies, is a contentious issue.
  • Critics argue that the use of deception is unjustified, citing downplayed risks and overstated benefits.
  • Concerns exist regarding research oversight and potential self-serving abuse.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the arguments surrounding deception in psychological research.
  • To analyze the claims made by critics regarding Milgram's obedience experiments.
  • To clarify the ethical status of deception in light of these debates.

Main Methods:

  • Review of critical literature on deception in psychological experiments.
  • Analysis of ethical arguments concerning informed consent and potential harm to participants.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral Research

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of the historical and scientific significance attributed to Milgram's studies.

    • Main Results:

    • Critics often overstate the moral and historical significance of Milgram's work.
    • It is challenging to definitively predict the benefits of research a priori.
    • Critics face difficulties in demonstrating the specific harms of deception to experimental subjects.
    • The Milgram studies' relevance to the broader debate on deception is debatable.

    Conclusions:

    • Both critics and proponents of deception in research may exaggerate their claims.
    • The ethical justification of deception requires careful consideration of potential harms and benefits.
    • Further clarification is needed on the precise ethical boundaries and implications of using deception in psychological research.