Research Redesign

Goal

Divide into groups to evaluate classic experimental studies. Define the focus of the experiment. Propose modern ethical redesigns using current standards.

Use the following Google Docs with your group and answer the questions in the document. Be sure to provide any additional citations (either articles or websites) that you used to inform your understanding of the topic or the solutions you came up with:

Studies

Milgram Obedience Study (1961-1963)

Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

The “Monster” Study (1939)

The Bobo Doll Experiment (1961)

Milgram Obedience Study (1961-1963)

Background & Historical Context

Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, designed his experiments shortly after the trial of Nazi war criminals, who claimed they were “just following orders.” Milgram sought to understand whether ordinary Americans would similarly follow destructive orders from authority figures.

Methodology

  • Participants: 40 male participants aged 20-50 from diverse occupations, recruited through newspaper ads offering $4.50 for participation in a “study of memory”
  • Experimental Setup:
    • Participants were assigned the role of “teacher” through a rigged drawing
    • A confederate played the “learner” role
    • An experimenter in a lab coat supervised the procedure
    • The participant sat before a shock generator with 30 switches labeled from 15-450 volts with descriptive labels (e.g., “Slight Shock” to “Danger: Severe Shock” to “XXX”)
  • Procedure:
    • Teachers were instructed to administer increasingly powerful shocks for each incorrect answer
    • When participants hesitated, the experimenter used four standardized verbal prods:
      1. “Please continue”
      2. “The experiment requires that you continue”
      3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue”
      4. “You have no other choice, you must go on”
    • No actual shocks were delivered, but participants heard pre-recorded audio of the learner’s responses (complaints, protests, screams, and eventually silence)

Results

  • 65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock
  • All participants continued to at least 300 volts
  • Many participants showed signs of extreme stress (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, etc.)

Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)

Background & Historical Context

Philip Zimbardo conducted this experiment at Stanford University to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a simulated prison environment. The study occurred during a period of prison reform activism and growing interest in situational influences on behavior.

Methodology

  • Participants: 24 male college students deemed “normal” based on psychological tests, paid $15/day
  • Setup:
    • Mock prison constructed in Stanford Psychology Department basement
    • Participants randomly assigned as prisoners or guards
    • Guards given uniforms, mirrored sunglasses, and wooden batons
    • Prisoners wore smocks, stocking caps, and chains on ankles
    • Cells contained only cots, no personal possessions allowed
  • Procedure:
    • Prisoners “arrested” at homes by real police officers
    • Guards worked 8-hour shifts, prisoners remained in facility 24/7
    • Guards received minimal instructions: maintain order without physical violence
    • Planned to run for 2 weeks but terminated after only 6 days

Evolution of the Experiment

  • Day 1: Relatively cooperative atmosphere
  • Day 2: Prisoner rebellion occurred; guards implemented punitive measures
  • Days 3-6: Increasing psychological abuse from guards:
    • Forced prisoners to clean toilets with bare hands
    • Removed mattresses, forcing some prisoners to sleep on concrete
    • Created “privilege cell” to divide prisoners
    • Implemented physical punishment (push-ups, standing for long periods)
    • Verbal humiliation and dehumanization tactics

Results & Termination

  • Guards increasingly displayed authoritarian and sadistic behavior
  • Prisoners showed signs of extreme stress, emotional breakdown, and learned helplessness
  • 5 prisoners were released early due to severe negative reactions
  • Zimbardo terminated the study prematurely after consulting with Christina Maslach (later his wife), who objected to the conditions

The “Monster” Study (1939)

Overview

The Monster Study (1939) was a controversial experiment conducted by University of Iowa researchers Wendell Johnson and his graduate student Mary Tudor. It aimed to test Johnson’s diagnosogenic theory—the idea that labeling normal speech disfluencies as stuttering could induce the disorder. The study involved 22 orphaned children from the Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home and raised significant ethical concerns due to its harmful methods.

Methodology

  • Participants: 22 orphans (ages 5–15) divided into four groups: - Group IA: 5 stuttering children given positive feedback (“Your speech is fine”)
    • Group IB: 5 stuttering children given no feedback
    • Group IIA: 6 fluent children falsely labeled as stutterers and criticized
    • Group IIB: 6 fluent children given no feedback
  • Intervention:

    • Tudor visited the orphanage biweekly for 4 months, delivering scripted feedback

    • To falsely labeled children (IIA):

      “You have many of the symptoms of a child who is beginning to stutter. You must try to stop yourself immediately… Don’t ever speak unless you can do it right.”

    • Staff instructions: Monitor speech constantly and correct perceived errors.

Ethical Violations

  1. Lack of Informed Consent:
    • Orphans, as minors, could not consent. Staff and guardians were also misled about the study’s purpose
  2. Psychological Harm:
    • Children in Group IIA developed anxiety, reduced speech output, and self-consciousness. Some exhibited lasting trauma.
    • One participant later described feeling “damaged for life”.
  3. Exploitation of Vulnerable Populations
    • Orphans were chosen due to their institutionalized status, limiting advocacy or recourse.
  4. Deception:
    • Researchers concealed the study’s true purpose and manipulated children’s self-perception

Results and Aftermath

  • Short-Term Effects:
    • Group IIA children showed increased disfluencies, shorter responses, and reluctance to speak
    • Tudor later attempted “positive therapy” to reverse damage after orphanage staff reported worsening speech.
  • Long-Term Consequences:
    • Multiple participants developed lifelong speech anxiety and social withdrawal.
    • In 2001, a lawsuit awarded $925,000 to seven survivors for psychological harm.
  • Scientific Impact
    • The study was never published due to ethical concerns but later resurfaced in 2001 investigations.
    • Critics argue its methodology (small sample, subjective labeling) weakened its validity.

The Bobo Doll Experiment (1961)

The Bobo Doll Experiment, conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961, was a pioneering study in social learning theory. It demonstrated that children can learn and imitate behaviors simply by observing others, challenging the behaviorist view that learning requires direct reinforcement. However, the study also raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the exposure of children to aggressive behavior.

Methodology

  • Participants: 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) aged 3-6 years from Stanford University Nursery School.
  • Groups: Children were divided into three groups:
    1. Aggressive Model Group: Observed an adult physically and verbally attacking a Bobo doll (e.g., hitting it with a mallet, shouting “Sock him in the nose!”).
    2. Non-Aggressive Model Group: Observed an adult playing calmly with toys and ignoring the Bobo doll.
    3. Control Group: No exposure to any model.
  • Procedure:
    • Each child individually observed their assigned model for 10 minutes.
    • Afterward, all children were subjected to a mild frustration task (e.g., being told they couldn’t play with certain toys).
    • Finally, they were placed in a room with toys, including a Bobo doll, and observed for imitative aggressive behaviors (e.g., hitting or shouting at the doll).

Results

  • Children exposed to the aggressive model were significantly more likely to imitate both physical and verbal aggression compared to the other two groups.
  • Boys exhibited more physical aggression than girls, though verbal aggression rates were similar across genders.
  • Children not only imitated specific aggressive actions but also created novel forms of aggression, demonstrating the power of observational learning.