This study investigated the effect of experimenter status and experiment outcome on the perceived ethicality of a psychological experiment. High authoritarians, but not low authoritarians, judged the experiment as more ethical when the experimenter was of high status and when the experimental hypothesis was confirmed. Ratings of ethicality were significantly correlated with perceived harm to participants for both groups; ratings of ethicality were significantly correlated with perceived benefits of research to science and society only in the case of high authoritarians.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adorno, T.W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N.The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.
2.
Berg, K.S. , & Vidmar, N.Authoritarianism and recall of evidence about criminal behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 1975. 9, 147-157.
3.
Berkowitz, N.H. , & Wolkon, G.H.A forced choice form of the F scale free of acquiescent response set. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 54-65.
4.
Berscheid, E. , Baron, R.S., Dermer, M., & Libman, M.Anticipating informed consent. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 913-925.
5.
Bickman, L. , & Zarantello, M.The effects of deception and level of obedience on subjects' ratings of the Milgram study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, 4, 81-85.
6.
Bramel, D.A dissonance theory approach to defensive projection . Journal of Abnormal and Social PsYchology, 1962, 64, 121-129.
7.
Elms, A.C.Social phychology and social relevance. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972.
8.
Gardner, G.T.Effects of federal human subjects regulations on data obtained in environmental stressor research . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 628-634.
9.
Hyman, H.H. , & Sheatsley, P.B."The authoritarian personality"-a methodological critique. In R. Christie and M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of "The authoritarian personality". Glencoe: Free Press, 1954.
10.
Milgram, S.Behavioral study of obedience . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 67, 371-378.
11.
Milgram, S.Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
12.
Mitchell, H. , & Byrne, D.The defendant's dilemma: Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 197325, 123-129.
13.
Schlenker, B.R. , & Forsyth, D.R.On the ethics of psychological research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977, 13, 369-396.
14.
Steiner, I.D. & Johnson, H.H.Authoritarianism and "tolerance of trait inconsistency". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 388-391.
15.
Tesch, F.E.Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 217-224.
16.
Wilson, D.W. , & Donnerstein, E.Legal and ethical aspects of non-reactive social psychological research: An excursion into the public mind. American Psychologist, 1976, 31, 765-773.
