If it was a race between which team researchers (Seligman and Maier, Johnson and Tudor or Watson and Raynor) was the most unethical, it would be a tie. Given credit for the year that each study was completed its still amazing how far each researcher went pass ethical standards of today. While reading each study I tried to view each experiement from the researcher’s point of view, but this led me to a dead end of unanswered questions. Matter of fact, if anyone can answer how could Johnson have had such an emotional and burdensome history of stuttering, but turn around and expose other innocent and fragile children to such an experiment?
The common bound between all three studies is the fact that all the researchers ignore the fact that researcher should not harm, nor place their subject in danger, even if it’s for the greater good. Today, there are strict ethical codes that guide researchers, yet compared to the history of psychological research it places many limitations. Examine the revision of ethics code standard 3.04 which focuses on avoiding harm. Each year APA takes many lengths to continue to provide the field of research with ethical codes that are for the greater good. By emphasizing that psychologist should not “engage in torture”. I think this shows effort that the field continues to put …show more content…
3.10B Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent. See also Standards and 8.02 Informed Consent Research pertain to these studies (APA, 2016)). There is no proof that Little Alberts parents consented for their child to go through such an experience. Would you allow you child to be exposed to fire? Or animals, that could harm your child? Last, do not demean people (3.03 Other Harassment (APA, 2016). In the Monster Study when the children where spoken to in a way that made them feel bad about their speech this is a prime example of harassment, which psychologist of today would
The common bound between all three studies is the fact that all the researchers ignore the fact that researcher should not harm, nor place their subject in danger, even if it’s for the greater good. Today, there are strict ethical codes that guide researchers, yet compared to the history of psychological research it places many limitations. Examine the revision of ethics code standard 3.04 which focuses on avoiding harm. Each year APA takes many lengths to continue to provide the field of research with ethical codes that are for the greater good. By emphasizing that psychologist should not “engage in torture”. I think this shows effort that the field continues to put …show more content…
3.10B Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent. See also Standards and 8.02 Informed Consent Research pertain to these studies (APA, 2016)). There is no proof that Little Alberts parents consented for their child to go through such an experience. Would you allow you child to be exposed to fire? Or animals, that could harm your child? Last, do not demean people (3.03 Other Harassment (APA, 2016). In the Monster Study when the children where spoken to in a way that made them feel bad about their speech this is a prime example of harassment, which psychologist of today would