Ethical guidelines are a fundamental part of Psychological Research. The guidelines are there to not only protect and maintain the reputation of psychology as a responsible, scientific discipline; but also to outline what is acceptable and not acceptable when conducting research. These guidelines ensure that no participant experiences distress (physical or psychological) as a result of that research. Ethics are simply described in Research Methods in Psychology by Howitt and Cramer as ‘Moral principles by which psychologists conduct themselves’
However, it is my personal belief that although ethics are put in place to protect participants, the findings from some studies in which ethical guidelines have been broken, are the studies that have provided us with ground breaking discoveries. In my opinion, a key example of this would be the study conducted by Watson and Raynor in 1920. The participant of the study, Little Albert, was only 18 months old when the study occurred. He was used to test the theory of whether or not phobias could be learnt through classical conditioning. Little Albert, whilst taking part in the study was subject to physical and psychological distress, causing him to develop phobias of many items and animals. Watson and Raynor, whilst presenting the item that they wished for Little Albert to learn to fear, would hit a steel bar behind the child’s head. Thus when an item/animal was presented again, Little Albert would associate that item with the terrible sound and learn to fear it. So, when the, for example, white rat was then shown to Little Albert he would now being expecting the noise from the steel bar to come with it. The distress that Albert went through breaks all ethical guidelines in place today. However, although Little Albert went through large amounts of stress from the study Systematic Desensitization, one of the leading therapies used to change the association of phobias to calm.
The findings that Watson and Raynor provided have helped to cure thousands of phobias. Without the research conducted on Little Albert, it is questionable as to whether or not those phobias could have been cured. However, does that make it acceptable to break ethics and cause people harm?
However, it will also be argued that without ethical guidelines being adhered to Psychological research should not be conducted. Some may argue that Watson and Raynor’s study should never have taken place as Little Albert was never helped to over come his newly developed phobias. That is why it is key for the researchers to put in place a degree of judgement in their application.
Ultimately, when research is conducted adherence to ethical guidelines is paramount. Without ethics Psychology would not only lose its scientific and disciplined reputation, but the participants that provide us with the ability to research and develop ground breaking discoveries into the mind and its endless possibilities.
jrwpsychology 
I thought that this post was well written and you portrayed some quite mind provoking views. For example, your argument about the Watson and Raynor study involving Little Albert, it was certainly a ground breaking study for it’s time. However, could we as psychologists argue that the study is over 90 years old and yes, the study didn’t follow any ethical guidelines, but that was then and this is now. We know about that study and the data now so we shouldn’t have to replicate the study. Other than that, I really enjoyed reading your post.
I found this to be a well written, interesting post which corresponds with my own personal beliefs; that breaking ethics is wrong but sometimes acts as a barrier to discovering fundamental data. Although the experiment you chose as an example is quite old, I think it’s a good case of breaking ethics for science because the participant experienced both physical and psychological harm from the experiment, and the fact that Little Hans was so young makes the study more distressing, therefore a further breach of ethics. It would also be nice to add your personal conclusion at the end of the post! Other than that it’s great.
Hi 🙂
Your introduction really effectively outlines what your going to discuss in your argument and i like the use of the definition by Howitt and Cramer as it helps understanding. You’ve covered in detail the experiment by Watson and Raynor and have written it clearly so anyone without a background in psychology could gather information from it. Although you are trying to argue that ethics need to be broken in the name of research, i think you could have expanded a bit more on the problems of breaking ethics and maybe put in an example but it was a very interesting blog to read 🙂
The curing of many people from phobias through desensitisation is of huge benefit to society. However can it really be the right thing to harm an 18month child. Although the study has already been completed and therefore the benefit can be seen. Would it be better to use an older participant who would be less likely to have lasting damage and who can give fully informed consent. I can also see the problems with this as the participant would no longer be a ‘blank slate’ and so could be affected by other factors but surely the lifelong damage to a young child is more damaging than that to an adult. Surely the right way to cure phobias would be to cure an existing phobia instead creating a new one.
I agree that ethics are significantly important in psychological research, but also that yes, past studies like Watson and Raynor did break ethical guidelines, just like other research by Zimbardo for example or Milgram, where the participants were put under large amounts of pressure or stress. But it could be said that these studies had to happen this way in order for people to learn from them and develop the findings, so that in similar future research the ethical guidelines are followed better. Overall, well argued debate on both sides 🙂
I like reading your blog that yours are a well-written one. There are many people writing on the ethical issue and most of you think that some ethic rules should be broken to provide new data on human behavior. I am totally agree with your point that the research with broken rules usually provide us new information about behavior.
Hi, you post interesting content on your page, you can get much more visits, just type in google for – augo’s tube traffic