What Is the Scale of Psychologist’s Moral and Ethical Attitudes?

Today, let’s explore the ethics in the field of psychology. As an aspiring experimental psychologist, I need to be clear about what’s acceptable and what isn’t in research. Often, people confuse psychologists with psychoanalysts, but they’re not the same.

The field of psychoanalysis can be ethically vague. Teaching ethics through psychoanalysis might only create confusion. In our first class, we were introduced to the “Scale of Psychologist’s Moral and Ethical Attitudes.”

This scale includes various questions about the qualities, actions, and values a psychologist should maintain. Some questions are clear-cut, like “being trustworthy,” while others can spark debates, such as “not following conditions that hinder ethical principles.”

How you interpret these depends on the rules. This is because some situations challenge measurement without breaching core principles, like experimental manipulation.

For example, studying susceptibility to suggestion is crucial in fields like politics, marketing, and education. However, this often involves ethical gray areas.

Should You Leave the Subject in at Least as Good a Condition as Found?

My guiding principle is to “leave the subject in at least as good a condition as found.” This means it’s okay to use experimental deception or induce a temporary negative mood.

This is acceptable as long as participants eventually receive positive feedback or rewards, restoring or improving their well-being. According to Baumrind (1964), this “restore the subject afterward” justification is itself contested.

This is because procedures involving deception or loss of dignity can cause harm that debriefing and rewards do not fully undo. Such research is essential for fields like economics and politics.

As Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) found in the original Stanford Prison Experiment, ordinary participants assigned to guard and prisoner roles quickly escalated into distress and abusive behavior. This was part of why such research prompted a lasting rethink of experimental ethics.

You might know about Zimbardo’s prison experiment or Milgram’s shock experiment. According to Milgram (1963), roughly two-thirds of ordinary participants in his original study administered what they believed were the maximum, potentially lethal shocks. They did this simply because an authority figure instructed them to continue.

Was This Kind of Research Ever Truly Ethical?

Americans can be bold in defining scientific boundaries, which is true. However, the ethical codes for psychologists have changed since then, making similar research nearly impossible now.

According to the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979), research involving human participants must now respect individual autonomy and minimize harm. Furthermore, it must distribute risks and benefits fairly.

I believe this change is a mix of mistake and hypocrisy. These aren’t everyday activities and aren’t conducted in controlled settings like in the USA.

This is clearly inhumane but is often underreported. There was significant concern about students reenacting prison violence or participants experiencing distress from electric shock simulations.

While these experiences might be memorable, they shouldn’t lead to a complete overhaul of global rules for experimental psychologists. The result is that such research continues, but with a layer of formality. Reports use euphemistic language, leading to the same conclusions about human nature.