Marriage 1
Andrew Marriage
Jennifer Betts
English 1102
10 April 2008
The Dangers of Psychological Testing
The science of psychology is a fascinating field to study. Throughout the ages, scientists
have been conducting experiments that try to decipher the code that is the human mind. While
most of the experiments are not harmful to the participants, there are a few experiments where
the ethics are widely debated. Examples of unethical psychology tests include following
experiments: Little Albert and the White Rat, which caused an innocent child to be afraid of any
white fuzzy animal; the Stanford Prison Experiment, which caused inmates to act sadistically and
prisoners to be emotionally scared; the Monster Study, which caused children to stutter; and the
Milgram Experiment, which caused participants to believe they were harming another person
and question their moral values. In modern times strict guidelines have been implemented to
protect the participants in a psychology experiment. These guidelines, created by the American
Psychological Association, include informed consent, debriefing, protection from harm, and
confidentiality (Sigelman and Rider). Unless the strict procedures set in place by the American
Psychology Association are followed, a psychological experiment could be harmful to the
participants involved in the research.
Psychology experiments can cause a remarkable amount of psychological damage if they
are not conducted properly by following the guidelines set in place. One of the most well known
immoral psychology experiments is the Little Albert Experiment, which tested classical
conditioning in humans (Harris). The experiment involved taking a nine-month-old baby and
Marriage 2
placing a white rat in front of him and he initially showed no fear of the rat (Harris). Watson and
Rayner then struck a claw hammer with a metal rod to produce a loud noise when Albert went to
touch the rat. (Harris). By today’s standards, the Little Albert Experiment is highly unethical
because the experiment created a phobia in a nine-month-old baby. If Watson and Rayner had
followed the American Psychological Associations guidelines, the experiment would not have
harmed Albert. Since Albert was an orphan and he was only nine months old the first two
guidelines, informed consent and debriefing, do not necessarily apply to the experiment.
However the third guideline, protection from harm does. Since Watson and Rayner did not know
what would happen to Albert, they should have taken special care not to psychologically harm
Albert. An example of an unintended side effect of the experiment was Albert’s fears of objects
other than a white rat. According to Ben Harris in the journal article “Whatever Happened to
Little Albert?” Albert was also afraid of “the rabbit, the dog, and the sealskin coat” (Harris 152).
The fact that Albert became afraid of items other than rats shows that the experiment had
negative consequences other than what the creators had intended. Since the conditioning that was
instilled upon Albert could not be undone, Watson and Rayner could have used an object that
Albert was highly unlikely to come across in his lifetime instead of a rat. Despite being
unethical, the experiment was necessary. Watson and Rayner proved that fears are not instilled at
birth, but are learned throughout a person’s lifetime. Watson and Rayner also showed that human
beings could be psychologically conditioned, even at a very young age. Harmful conditioning is
not the only side effect that can arise due to a psychological experiment; emotional scarring is
another risk that must be taken into consideration when conducting a psychological experiment.
When conducting a psychological experiment, the potential damage the experiment may
cause to participants must be considered. These side effects are not limited to mental breakdowns
Marriage 3
or phobias but include emotional trauma and even physical harm. One such experiment that
caused partakers emotional harm is the Stanford Prison Experiment. The Stanford Prison
Experiment was conducted to discover the psychological effects of placing people in
imprisonment (Zimbardo). The experiment was both unethical and inhuman because the
prisoners were embarrassed, mistreated, and denied the necessities of life. Participants were told
to expect some harassment and humiliation, but nothing could have prepared them for the
horrors that occurred during the research. The prisoners were forced to wear dresses and nylon
stockings on their heads, they were given numbers instead of names and they had to wear a
heavy chain around their ankles (Zimbardo). Prisoners also had their perception of time warped
by removing all clocks and windows from the mock prison (Zimbardo). The experiment became
inhuman once the prisoners lost their eating privileges and beds in their cells (Zimbardo). An
experiment such as the Stanford Prison Experiment should never have been allowed to take place
because the psychologists conducting the research did not know what to expect from the guards
or prisoners in the experiment. The benefits of the potential scientific data gathered from the
experiment did not outweigh the cruelty that the prisoners faced. Psychological experiments can
be disastrous if they are not conducted properly in a safe manner. The results can range from
instilling phobias and causing emotional trauma to creating speech problems and ultimately
changing a person’s personality.
Psychological damage is not limited to forming fears or emotionally harming a person, it
can also completely change a person. One experiment that completely altered the personality of
the test subjects was the Monster Study. In the Monster Study a researcher named Wendell
Johnson was studying whether or not labeling children as stutters, would cause them to stutter
(everything2). During the experiment children without speech problems were repeatedly
Marriage 4
reinforced with the idea that they had speech problems (everything2). By the end of the
experiment five out of six children had worsened speech (everything2). While the premise of the
experiment was noble, the end results were never used because Johnson covered the experiment
out of fear of ruining his career, making the experiment unnecessary (everything2). If Johnson
had actually used the results of the experiment to help create speech therapies that worked, the
experiment would have had some justification. However, validation for the experiment still
would not have been enough to stop it from being highly unethical. Purposefully causing normal
children without speech impediments to stutter is not ethical, despite the reasoning for causing
the speech problem. Instead of creating a stuttering problem in ordinary children, Johnson should
have used children who already had difficulties speaking and attempted to fix their problems
during the experiment. In addition to causing speech problems in normal children, the
experiment also changed some of the children’s personalities, which adversely affected their
lives (everything2). Some of the children became very shy and as a result their grades started to
decline (everything2). Purposely subjecting young children to negative reinforcement and
completely changing their lives for the worse is not acceptable in any experiment, no matter how
much knowledge can be gained from the research. Negatively modifying peoples lives, instilling
phobias, and causing emotional trauma are just three of the potential adverse effects of
psychological testing. Putting participants in a highly uncomfortable position is yet another
danger and unethical aspect of psychological testing.
The Milgram Experiment is one such experiment that put participants in a highly
uncomfortable situation and made them noticeably upset with the circumstances they were
presented with. During the 1960s an experimenter named Stanley Milgram created an
experiment to examine how willing ordinary citizens are to harm another human being (Hauser
Marriage 5
41). The participants in the experiment played the role of a teacher and an actor played the role
of a student (Hauser 41). Every time the student got a question wrong the teacher had to shock
the student, with increasing increments of voltage of up to 450 volts (Hauser 41). The students
were never shocked; they were just acting like they were (Hauser 41). During the experiment if a
teacher refused to shock the student, an authority figure would insist that the teacher continue
with the experiment, if the teacher continued to refuse, the authority figure would begin to
command the teacher to continue with the experiment (Miller 3). According to Arthur G. Miller
in the journal article "Perspectives on Obedience to Authority: The Legacy of the Milgram
Experiments”, “[p]rods 3 and 4, in particular, distinguish this type of experiment from all other
studies of social influence, for these are literally commands or orders that, if obeyed, ultimately
resulted in the learner appearing to receive intolerable pain” (Miller 3). Although the student was
never actually shocked, the experiment was still forcing another a person to inflict pain upon
another person, which is highly unethical. An experiment should not cause injury to the members
involved nor should an experiment create the illusion that one person is hurting another person.
In addition to creating an false impression that the teachers were injuring the students, the
experiment also placed the teachers in a highly stressful situation. In the article “Obedience in
Modern Society: The Utrecht Studies”, Wim H. Meeus commented that “the subject also finds
himself in a very specific position, comparable to the position of someone who is suddenly
trapped” (Meeus 158). The feeling of being trapped creates an incredibly stressful state in a
person, which is unethical because it can harm him or her. The experiment also caused the
teachers to face a strong moral dilemma, one in which the teacher “does not have the necessary
cognitive and social-moral competence to resolve the new conflict in favor of the victim” (Meeus
159). This third characteristic makes the Milgram Experiment unethical because the experiment
Marriage 6
caused the teachers to question themselves and caused them to believe that they were horrible
people for shocking the student. Causing participants to possibly belittle themselves and question
their moral integrity should never occur in an experiment. Facing moral dilemmas, being placed
in highly stressful environments, negatively affecting a person’s life, and instilling fears in
children are all adverse effects that can occur during psychological testing.
Psychological testing is dangerous and unethical to the participants if the strict guidelines
set forth by the American Psychological Association are not followed. One of the potential risks
from psychological experimentation is having a phobia implanted because of conditioning.
Watson and Rayner implanted a phobia of anything white and fuzzy into a young child during
their experimentation on classical conditioning. Another side effect of psychological tests that do
not follow guidelines is extreme emotional trauma and stress. The Stanford Prison Experiment
caused a great deal of emotional trauma and stress to those involved. Yet another consequence of
unconventional psychological testing is having a participant’s personality and life changed for
the worse. The Monster Study gave rise to stuttering in children without speech impediments that
caused a personality shift in some of the members of the experiment. A final negative outcome
of psychological testing is making participants face moral dilemmas and making them believe
they are harming another human being. Stanley Milgram made the teachers in his experiment
face such moral dilemmas and placed them in a highly stressful environment. Psychological
testing, while necessary, must follow the strict guidelines set forth by the American
Psychological Association; otherwise the experiments could have disastrous consequences to
those involved.