Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In her exposé of Milgram’s deceptions in obtaining “informed consent” and “dehoaxing” his subjects, Perry reveals Milgram’s deceit and misrepresentation in his dealings with colleagues as well as participants. Perry relies on evidence from Milgram’s unpublished papers and transcripts of his experimental proceedings to support her pejorative judgment on Milgram’s professional ethics. Although deception research, such as Milgram’s, clearly violates the informed consent clause of the APA Code of Ethics, it remains a modus operandi in child development and social psychology research. I argue that deception research proscribes informed consent and infringes the fiduciary obligation of psychologists to be trustworthy, and should be prohibited rather than justified by a cost-benefit analysis, as is presently the case.

Keywords

deception research fiduciary obligations informed consent Milgram’s lies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf

Baumrind

(1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral study of obedience”. American Psychologist, 19(6), 421–423.

Baumrind

(1971). Principles of ethical conduct in the treatment of subjects: Reaction to the draft report of the Committee on Ethical Standards in Psychological Research. American Psychologist, 26(10), 887–896.

Baumrind

(1972). Reactions to the May 1972 draft report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Ethical Standards in Psychological Research. American Psychologist, 27(11), 1083–1086.

Baumrind

(1978). Nature and definition of informed consent in research involving deception. In The Belmont report, Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects (Appendix, Vol. II, pp. 23–171; DHEW Publication No. OS 78–0014). Washington, DC: The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

Baumrind

(1979). IRBs and social science research: The costs of deception. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 1(6), 1–4.

Baumrind

(1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40(2), 165–174.

Baumrind

(2013). Is Milgram’s deceptive research ethically acceptable? Theoretical and Applied Ethics, 2(2), 1–18.

Blass

(2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.

10.

Bok

(1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

11.

Elms

A. C.

(1972). Social psychology and social relevance. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

12.

Haslam

S. A.

Miller

A. G.

Reicher

S. D.

(Eds.). (2014). Milgram at 50: Exploring the enduring relevance of psychology’s most famous studies [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 70(3).

13.

Lyon

T. D.

Wandrey

Ahern

Licht

Sim

M. P. Y.

Quas

J. A.

(2014). Eliciting maltreated and nonmaltreated children’s transgression disclosures: Narrative practice rapport building and a putative confession. Child Development, 85, 1756–1769.

14.

Milgram

(1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

15.

Milgram

(1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19(11), 848–852.

16.

Milgram

(1974). Obedience to authority. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

17.

Miller

A. G.

(1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York, NY: Praeger.

18.

Orne

M. T.

Holland

C. H.

(1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6(4), 282–293.

19.

Perry

(2013a). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. New York, NY: The New Press.

20.

Perry

(2013b). Deception and illusion in Milgram’s accounts of the obedience experiments. Theoretical and Applied Ethics, 2(2), 79–92.

When subjects become objects: The lies behind the Milgram legend

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References