Withdrawal rights enable participants to withdraw without explanation or reprisal. (Brown, 2018). Although Milgram stated participants were able to withdraw, verbal cues given by the experimenter convinced the participants that they were unable to withdraw immediately. When participants requested to withdraw due to the distress of hearing screams of the learner, rather than allowing them to leave instantly, the experimenter would state a set of verbal cues to encourage the participant. “Please continue,” “The experiment requires that you continue,” “It is absolutely essential that you continue,” “You have no other choice, you must go on”. (Milgram, 1963). These prompts resulted in the participants feeling obligated to carry on under pressure. However, Milgram argued the orders were required because the study was about obedience. The only time participants could truly withdraw was after the four verbal cues. Therefore, it was not impossible as 35% of participants chose to leave. (McLeod, 2007). However, it was still unethical as participants were unable to withdraw upon request. Evidently, the verbal prompts led all participants to believe they had no right to withdraw from the study. As a result, it left the participants feeling an undue level of …show more content…
This can be done by notifying the participants at least twice in writing that they can withdraw and still receive their payment. Additionally, prior to the experiment, the authority figure could have stated that there is no pressure for the participants to continue if they need to withdraw at any time. Ensuring participants remain fully aware of their right to withdrawal prior to the experiment would result in a similar outcome as the necessary verbal cues would still test participant’s obedience during the experiment. Therefore, repeatedly informing participants of their withdrawal rights prior to the experiment would be an improvement as it does not ruin the aim throughout the study, but limits the distress participants felt to continue under