As I wrote about in my previous blog, many famous experiments and studies conducted in the early- to mid-20^th century were not ethical by today’s standards. In those days, scientific studies were governed by less stringent guidelines, and it was deemed acceptable to deceive or even hurt participants in the study. Today, nearly every institution that conducts research has its own policies to protect study participants, and the American Psychological Association has also developed its own code of conduct to ensure ethical experimentation.

One of the first psychological studies I learned about was the Little Albert experiment, which took place at Johns Hopkins University and was published in 1920. The experimenter, John B. Watson, wanted to test whether classical conditioning was possible in humans. First studied by Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov, classical conditioning involves using a neutral stimulus to elicit a conditioned response. In Pavlov’s case, he found that dogs salivated whenever they were given food. So, he began ringing a bell when the dogs were given food, and eventually, the dogs began salivating when only the bell was rung and no food was given. In Watson’s experiment, Albert B. (a pseudonym) was a 9-month-old baby and the subject of the experiment. At the beginning of the experiment, Albert loved touching and interacting with animals, including dogs and rats. In the experiment, whenever Albert tried to pet the animal, a hammer was hit against a metal pole, creating a loud sound that frightened the baby. Eventually, Albert developed a phobia to animals and furry objects in general due to the pairing of the loud sound with the presence of the animal. He began crying whenever an animal was put in his lap. After the experiment, Albert was never desensitized to the phobias he developed, which is why this experiment is considered unethical.

Another famous experiment with questionable ethics was the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. The goal of the study was to investigate the dynamics of perceived power, and the scenario used was a prison setting in which half of the participants were assigned the role of prisoner and the remaining participants were made guards. A mock prison was intricately designed, and the participants were costumed to reflect their assigned parts (guards were given batons and prisoners were required to wear a chain around their ankles). The first day of the experiment went by unremarkably, but on the second day, prisoners began to revolt and barricaded themselves in their cells. In response, the guards began using psychological tactics to punish the prisoners. They separated the “good” and “bad” prisoners, and created punishments for bad behavior, including solitary confinement, mandatory pushups, and being stripped naked. Zimbardo soon noticed that some prisoners began acting crazy and some guards had developed sadistic tendencies, so the study was ended after only 6 days (it was originally supposed to last for 2 weeks). One of the main criticisms of this controversial study was how easily the participants internalized their roles. At the end of the study, many of the subjects reported psychological distress and emotional trauma. In fact, some prisoners had to be removed from the study early due to concerns about their sanity.

Although neither of these experiments would be approved today, the benefits and new knowledge gained from these studies should not be overlooked. It goes without saying that, in order to study the psychological phenomena governing human life, it is best to study human subjects directly. In fact, many psychological studies today do involve human participants, but strict measures are taken to protect the subjects, including obtaining informed consent prior to the experiment and fully debriefing participants after the study.