Practice question · Multiple choice
Milgram's study required participants to believe they were administering real shocks; telling them the truth in advance would have destroyed the phenomenon being studied. Why does that necessity not settle the ethical question by itself?
Hints
- "This study cannot be done without deception" and "this study should be done" are different claims. Does the first imply the second?
- Ask what the participants were exposed to that they had not consented to.
Show the answer
C. Because necessity shows only that it cannot be run honestly.
Why
The argument from necessity answers a question nobody asked: granting the phenomenon disappears under disclosure, what follows is two options — deceive, or do not run it — and the ethical work is choosing. Milgram debriefed carefully and his participants were still exposed to severe distress, which is a harm they could not have anticipated when they agreed.
Practise Research Ethics
The app has 5 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Psychology I is free to start.
More questions on Research Ethics
- Select every statement that is TRUE about research ethics.
- Research with children requires a parent's consent and the child's assent. Why insist on both when the parent…
- Order the stages of ethical oversight for a deceptive study, from the earliest to the last.
- Obtaining a signed consent form is enough to make a study ethical, even if the IRB never reviewed it and…
- Sort each item by whether it is an ethical protection for participants or a genuine violation.
- A study promises confidentiality: the researchers know who said what but will not disclose it. Another…