· Zimbardo Protection of participants, Withdrawal difficult, lack of informed consent, confidentiality arrest at home, torture, observation, wearing dress
· Milgram Protection of participants, withdrawal, Deception, upsetting
· Bandura Teaching aggression, frightening child (Protection of participant). Consent, withdrawal
· Gardner and Gardner animal rights
· Rosenhan protection of participants taking drugs
· Piliavin deception, upsetting people, protection of participants
· You need to deceive in order for the experiment to work (Demand Characteristics would ruin the experiment) e.g Milgram if they knew it was to do with obedience the participants would not have obeyed.
· Impracticable to debrief and get consent (e.g. Piliavin)
· Difficult to get fully informed consent without giving away what the experiment is all about, so demand characteristics ruin the experiment.
· It is not always possible to predict how people will react (e.g. Zimbardo who was to know the prisoners would break down?
Milgram he didnt expect people to obey.
· Could miss out on interesting research, for example, into anti-social behaviour. Banduras aggression experiment could have been much worse.
· Research that adheres fully to ethical guidelines would suffer from low ecological validity.
Bear in mind that the results of ethical studies could be used un-ethically links with social control. E.g. Raine, Gould, Hodges and Tizard.
Ethical suggestions for research that has been unethical
Zimbardo experimenter should not get involved should have an independent person watching what goes on with prisoners.
Zimbardo observe real guards and interview families.
Make it a natural experiment and you should not go wrong!