- Sreshtha Roy
Intern at Mind Splatters, Sept-Oct 2023
Psychological Experiments are known to be the core of Psychology itself. It helps gain a deeper insight into why an individual does what they do. Classical conditioning, operant conditioning, all these psychological theories are a result of experiments. However, many times Psychologists haven’t exactly used the most ethical ways to conduct experiments and some of them have ended up going wrong. They have, quite frankly, used bizarre ways to prove their hypothesis and have ended up scaring quite a lot of people. Here are 5 such experiments that are both ethically and morally incorrect:
Little Albert Experiment- This must be one of the most heart-wrenching experiments you will read about because it was conducted on an 8-year-old!
American Psychologist John B. Watson wanted to learn if he could instill fear in children for ordinary things. For this, Watson borrowed 8-month-old Albert and showed him a white rat. However, this did not instill any fear in the child after which Watson introduced the rat again, but this time accompanied by a loud noise which for obvious reasons, scared the child. Watson kept repeating this process until baby Albert associated the noise with the rat and burst into tears whenever he saw the rat. Baby Albert went on not only to fear rats but also rabbits, dogs, and Santa’s beards! Watson scared the child for the rest of his life.
Monster Experiment- The speech therapy experiment conducted by psychologist Dr. Wendell Johnson recruited graduate student Mary Tudor to conduct the 1939 experiment for her master's thesis under his supervision. Two groups of 22 orphaned kids, each having a mixture of those with and without speech abnormalities, were formed, ten of whom had stuttering concerns. One of the two groups received supportive criticism on verbal communication, whilst the other received scathing criticism for their speaking issues. The human subjects of this six-month trial had significant effects. Even individuals without prior communication issues were affected, causing some to become anxious and retreat. Six of the former subjects received a sizeable payout from the state of Iowa in 2007 for what they had gone through; the people claimed they had suffered psychological and emotional harm.
Stanford Prison Experiment- Professor Philip Zimbardo experimented at Stanford University in 1971, recruiting 35 undergraduate students to act as guards and another 35 to act as prisoners in a basement. He sought to test the idea that personality features have a major role in conflicts and mistreatment between convicts and prison guards. The "prisoners" began exhibiting emotional instability and rage 12 hours after the "guards" ruthlessly put down a "prisoner" and used overtly authoritarian tactics. The trial abruptly ended after five days when it became clear, according to the study's lead investigator, that they had created an extremely dangerous condition.
The Milgram Experiment- In Stanley Milgram's controversial experiment, subjects were instructed to shock a learner with electricity each time they provided a false response. Before posing a new query, they had to raise the voltage. The participants were the subjects of another investigation, even though they believed they were a part of one looking into learning strategies. Some of the participants were actors, thus no actual shocks were given. The actual research looked at how much people would be willing to hurt someone else if they were told to by an authoritative figure. The study revealed that even though the "earners" were screaming in pain, many volunteers administered the maximum amount of what they believed to be 450 volts. The participants who delivered the electric shocks were under a great deal of stress throughout the experiment and were negatively affected for a very long time, even though the actors didn't sustain any physical harm.
The Bobo Doll Experiment- One of the most important psychologists of the 20th century Stanford University professor Albert Bandura undertook a study to see whether violent behavior could be taught through observation in the early 1960s. In his study, young children observed an adult hit an inflatable doll physically and verbally. The children's behavior toward the doll while left unattended was then monitored by Bandura. Surprisingly, the kids rapidly imitated the behavior they had seen and began verbally and physically abusing the doll, even beating it with a hammer. The experiment drew criticism since the kids were taught to get furious and fight without cause. The experimenters were also uncertain of any potential long-term repercussions.
All these experiments are proof of how experiments need to be conducted in a moderate setting which won’t cause potential damage to any of the subjects.