Exploring Ethical Dilemmas in Psychology: Stanford, Milgram, and Little Albert の全文書き起こし

--> 00:02:21.358 Researchers must protect the privacy of participants and ensure that personal 00:02:21.358 --> 00:02:26.958 data is kept confidential. Any identifiable information should be securely stored 00:02:26.958 --> 00:02:29.978 and only accessed by authorised personnel. 00:02:30.338 --> 00:02:32.778 The next one is minimising harm. 00:02:33.258 --> 00:02:39.118 Researchers should minimise any potential physical or psychological harm to participants. 00:02:39.678 --> 00:02:45.218 Risk assessment is crucial to ensure that the benefits of the research outweigh any risks. 00:02:45.778 --> 00:02:51.138 Next up we have debriefing. After participation, researchers should provide 00:02:51.138 --> 00:02:56.538 participants with a debriefing session to explain the study's purpose and address 00:02:56.538 --> 00:02:58.758 any consequences of participation. 00:02:59.218 --> 00:03:01.338 This helps participants understand 00:03:01.338 --> 00:03:04.998 their role in any psychological effects that they may experience. 00:03:05.678 --> 00:03:08.338 Next up is integrity and honesty. 00:03:09.458 --> 00:03:13.478 Researchers must conduct their work honestly and report findings truthfully. 00:03:13.798 --> 00:03:16.618 Ensuring the accuracy of this data and avoid 00:03:16.618 --> 00:03:19.738 fabrication or plagiarism is vital for 00:03:19.738 --> 00:03:22.718 maintaining credibility and research for 00:03:22.718 --> 00:03:26.658 diversity sorry no respect for diversity researchers 00:03:26.658 --> 00:03:29.978 should be mindful of cultural social and individual 00:03:29.978 --> 00:03:34.658 differences among participants inclusivity and research design and interpretation 00:03:34.658 --> 00:03:40.378 of results is essential so many institutions will have institutional review 00:03:40.378 --> 00:03:47.118 boards or IRBs that review research proposals to ensure that they comply with 00:03:47.118 --> 00:03:49.578 ethical standards. IRBs, in a sense. 00:03:50.893 --> 00:03:56.513 Assess the ethical implications of research focusing on participant safety and rights. 00:03:57.613 --> 00:04:01.813 So the first experiment we will be looking at today is the Stanford Prison Experiment. 00:04:02.473 --> 00:04:08.893 So this experiment was conducted in 1917 by psychologist Philip Zambardo at Stanford University. 00:04:09.353 --> 00:04:13.753 The primary aim of the experiment was to investigate the psychological effects 00:04:13.753 --> 00:04:18.533 of perceived power focusing on the struggle between prisoners and prison guards. 00:04:18.873 --> 00:04:22.973 The backdrop The backdrop of this study was the ongoing discourse of the impact 00:04:22.973 --> 00:04:29.413 of situational dynamics on behaviour, particularly within the context of authority and conformity. 00:04:30.033 --> 00:04:33.933 Zambardo designed the experiment in response to the increasing concerns about 00:04:33.933 --> 00:04:38.693 the treatment of individuals in prison settings, following reports of

abusive 00:04:38.693 --> 00:04:40.293 practices in actual prisons. 00:04:40.293 --> 00:04:45.193 To create a realistic environment, a mock prison was constructed in the basement 00:04:45.193 --> 00:04:49.873 of the Stanford Psychology Building, with participants recruited through newspaper 00:04:49.873 --> 00:04:54.173 ads offering $15 a day for two weeks. 00:04:54.713 --> 00:05:00.193 So the experiment involved 24 male college students who were randomly assigned 00:05:00.193 --> 00:05:03.133 roles as either guards or prisoners. 00:05:03.593 --> 00:05:09.133 The setup was intended to simulate prison environment, complete with uniforms, 00:05:09.493 --> 00:05:11.333 a strict schedule and surveillance. 00:05:12.193 --> 00:05:18.373 The guards were instructed to maintain order, but were given no specific guidelines on how to do so. 00:05:18.653 --> 00:05:23.333 Within a short period, these guards adopted authoritarian behaviours, 00:05:23.333 --> 00:05:27.813 subjecting prisoners to psychological abuse and humiliation. 00:05:28.855 --> 00:05:33.355 Conversely, the prisoners displayed signs of stress and emotional distress, 00:05:33.855 --> 00:05:36.395 with some even going on hunger strikes. 00:05:37.495 --> 00:05:40.135 The study, which was originally planned to last for two weeks, 00:05:40.395 --> 00:05:43.915 was terminated just six days after starting, 00:05:44.695 --> 00:05:48.355 due to the extreme psychological effects observed in both groups, 00:05:49.075 --> 00:05:53.435 highlighting how quickly ordinary individuals could slip into abusive roles 00:05:53.435 --> 00:05:55.815 when placed into a position of power. 00:05:55.815 --> 00:06:00.675 Now the Stanford Prison Experiment raised significant ethical concerns particularly 00:06:00.675 --> 00:06:06.535 regarding the treatment of participants The American Psychological Association's 00:06:06.535 --> 00:06:11.455 guidelines emphasised the importance of informed consent the right to withdraw 00:06:11.455 --> 00:06:15.495 from the study and the minimisation of harm In this case, 00:06:15.615 --> 00:06:20.315 participants were not adequately informed about the potential risks Many felt 00:06:20.315 --> 00:06:24.515 unable to withdraw due to the intense pressure and authority exerted by the 00:06:24.515 --> 00:06:29.015 guards additionally the psychological distress experienced by the prisoners 00:06:29.015 --> 00:06:33.035 was profound leading to lasting emotional trauma for some participants. 00:06:34.175 --> 00:06:38.975 Zimbardo's dual role as both the researcher and prison superintendent further 00:06:38.975 --> 00:06:43.715 complicated the ethical landscape as he often prioritised the experiment's goals 00:06:43.715 --> 00:06:45.735 over the well-being of the participants. 00:06:46.175 --> 00:06:50.515 The aftermath of the study prompted a re-evaluation of ethical standards and 00:06:50.515 --> 00:06:52.655 psychological research leading to 00:06:52.655 --> 00:06:56.195 stricter regulations designed to protect participants in future studies. 00:06:56.735 --> 00:07:02.215 This study remains a pivotal case in psychology, illustrating the profound impact 00:07:02.215 --> 00:07:07.235 of situational variables on human behaviour and the need for ethical oversight in research. 00:07:08.564 --> 00:07:13.024 Now, even though we are discussing the ethics behind it, there are obviously 00:07:13.024 --> 00:07:15.184 pros and cons to every study. 00:07:15.584 --> 00:07:19.364 Some of the pros of this study are the insight into human behaviour. 00:07:19.564 --> 00:07:23.584 This experiment provided valuable insight into how ordinary individuals can 00:07:23.584 --> 00:07:27.004 engage in abusive behaviour when placed in positions of power. 00:07:27.304 --> 00:07:32.244 It highlighted the influence of situational factors over individual personalities. 00:07:33.704 --> 00:07:38.204 It showed us awareness of authority dynamics. It raised awareness about the 00:07:38.204 --> 00:07:42.704 psychological effects of authority in power dynamics, demonstrating how people 00:07:42.704 --> 00:07:46.344 can conform to roles that align with societal expectation, 00:07:46.824 --> 00:07:49.004 regardless of their personal morals. 00:07:50.144 --> 00:07:54.044 It also laid the foundation for further research. The findings spurred further 00:07:54.044 --> 00:07:57.744 research on topics such as conformity, obedience and the psychology of power, 00:07:58.084 --> 00:08:03.924 influencing various fields including social psychology, criminology and sociology. 00:08:03.924 --> 00:08:06.944 Sociology and as we've mentioned it had 00:08:06.944 --> 00:08:10.124 its effect on ethical standards the ethical issues raised 00:08:10.124 --> 00:08:13.144 by this experiment led to significant changes in regulations 00:08:13.144 --> 00:08:16.604 governing psychological research emphasizing the 00:08:16.604 --> 00:08:22.284 need for informed consent and participant welfare now obviously with pros there's 00:08:22.284 --> 00:08:27.844 cons so the cons here obviously ethical violations it's criticized for its lack 00:08:27.844 --> 00:08:32.364 of ethical consideration including inadequate informed consent and failure to 00:08:32.364 --> 00:08:36.084 protect participants from psychological harm. 00:08:36.964 --> 00:08:39.444 Many participants experienced severe emotional distress. 00:08:40.424 --> 00:08:47.284 Critics argue that it lacked proper scientific control and methodological rigor. 00:08:48.484 --> 00:08:52.124 Raising questions about the validity and reliability of its findings. 00:08:53.104 --> 00:08:57.404 The overgeneralization of results, the conclusions drawn from this experiment 00:08:57.404 --> 00:08:59.304 may not be universally applicable. 00:08:59.964 --> 00:09:03.764 Critics contend that the findings cannot be generalised beyond the specific 00:09:03.764 --> 00:09:07.564 context of the study, limiting the relevance to the real world. 00:09:08.044 -->

00:09:13.064 As well as the researcher's influence, Zambardo's dual role as both researcher 00:09:13.064 --> 00:09:17.304 and superintendent may have influenced the behaviour of both guards and prisoners, 00:09:17.544 --> 00:09:21.944 potentially skewing the results and diminishing the objectivity of this study. 00:09:22.624 --> 00:09:27.644 So in summary, while the Stanford Prison Experiment contributed significantly 00:09:27.644 --> 00:09:30.684 to our understanding of human behavior and authority dynamics, 00:09:31.084 --> 00:09:36.644 it also serves as a cautionary tale regarding ethical standards and psychological research. 00:09:38.245 --> 00:09:42.385 Next up we have the Milgram experiment, which was a groundbreaking psychological 00:09:42.385 --> 00:09:47.465 study conducted by Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s at Yale University. 00:09:48.125 --> 00:09:53.065 This experiment aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals would obey 00:09:53.065 --> 00:09:59.965 authority figures, even when their commands conflicted with personal conscience and moral beliefs. 00:10:00.445 --> 00:10:05.205 The backdrop of this study was the widespread debate surrounding the Nuremberg 00:10:05.205 --> 00:10:07.905 trials and the atrocities committed during World War II. 00:10:08.245 --> 00:10:15.985 Which raised questions about how ordinary people could partake in such inhumane acts under orders. 00:10:16.665 --> 00:10:21.605 Milgram sought to understand the psychological mechanisms that could lead individuals 00:10:21.605 --> 00:10:27.525 to comply with authority, thus providing insight into human behaviour in the context of obedience. 00:10:28.605 --> 00:10:33.905 So the experiment involved a simple set up where participants were assigned 00:10:33.905 --> 00:10:39.585 the role of a teacher, while an accomplice, or the learner, was placed in another 00:10:39.585 --> 00:10:41.625 room and connected to a shock generator. 00:10:42.765 --> 00:10:46.405 The teachers were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks 00:10:46.405 --> 00:10:50.185 to the learner for each incorrect answer given during a memory test. 00:10:50.765 --> 00:10:57.305 The shocks ranged from 15 volts, or a slight shock, to 450 volts, 00:10:57.425 --> 00:11:03.165 which was a dangerous shock, with the learner feigning pain and eventually becoming unresponsive. 00:11:03.645 --> 00:11:09.385 Milgram's findings were startling. 65% of participants continued to administer 00:11:09.385 --> 00:11:15.085 shocks up to the maximum voltage despite the apparent distress caused to the learner. 00:11:16.105 --> 00:11:19.185 The experiment revealed that ordinary people were willing to obey authority 00:11:19.185 --> 00:11:24.525 figures and to the extent of inflicting harm on others, challenging previous 00:11:24.525 --> 00:11:26.265 assumptions about human morality. 00:11:27.749 --> 00:11:33.009 Now, the Milgram experiment then sparked extensive ethical debates within the 00:11:33.009 --> 00:11:34.849 psychological community and beyond. 00:11:35.849 --> 00:11:40.369 Key ethical issues included deception, as participants were misled about the 00:11:40.369 --> 00:11:43.549 true nature of the experiment and the well-being of the learner. 00:11:43.909 --> 00:11:47.989 Many participants experienced significant emotional distress during the study, 00:11:48.069 --> 00:11:54.029 leading to concerns about informed consent and potential psychological harm inflicted upon them. 00:11:54.029 --> 00:12:00.249 The lack of debriefing and long-term psychological impact on participants raised 00:12:00.249 --> 00:12:01.429 further ethical questions. 00:12:02.029 --> 00:12:07.109 Critics argued that the studies designed violated ethical standards by prioritising 00:12:07.109 --> 00:12:09.829 research findings over the welfare of the participants. 00:12:10.469 --> 00:12:15.529 As a result, the Milgram experiment played a crucial role in the development 00:12:15.529 --> 00:12:20.109 of ethical guidelines in psychological research, emphasizing the importance 00:12:20.109 --> 00:12:24.729 of protecting participants from harm and ensuring transparency in study procedures. 00:12:25.409 --> 00:12:30.589 In summary, the Milgram experiment remains a powerful illustration of the complexities 00:12:30.589 --> 00:12:34.709 of human obedience, morality and the ethical responsibility of researchers in 00:12:34.709 --> 00:12:35.349 the field of psychology. 00:12:36.149 --> 00:12:41.049 And again, we'll go into the pros and cons. Pros are the experiment provided 00:12:41.049 --> 00:12:45.689 significant insight into human behavior, particularly regarding obedience to authority. 00:12:45.689 --> 00:12:50.009 It highlighted how ordinary individuals could commit acts they would typically 00:12:50.009 --> 00:12:56.429 find reprehensible when prompted by an authority figure. 00:12:57.469 --> 00:13:00.889 Milgram's findings also contributed to a deeper understanding of the psychological 00:13:00.889 --> 00:13:06.429 mechanisms underlying conformity and obedience, influencing various fields including 00:13:06.429 --> 00:13:09.469 psychology, sociology and political science. 00:13:10.717 --> 00:13:14.837 The experiment employed a controlled laboratory setting, allowing for rigorous 00:13:14.837 --> 00:13:17.357 observation and measurements of participants' behaviour. 00:13:17.717 --> 00:13:23.057 This methodological approach set a precedent for future psychological studies. 00:13:23.857 --> 00:13:28.277 In the fact it was conducted in the wake of World War II, the experiment provided 00:13:28.277 --> 00:13:33.397 context into the moral dilemmas faced by individuals in situations of authority and power, 00:13:34.217 --> 00:13:38.297 fostering discussions about ethics in society and the potential for ordinary 00:13:38.297 --> 00:13:39.817 people to commit atrocities. 00:13:40.717 --> 00:13:47.117 However, there are always cons, and top of that list, once

again, is ethical concerns. 00:13:47.597 --> 00:13:52.777 The experiment raised significant ethical issues, including deception and the 00:13:52.777 --> 00:13:55.337 emotional distress inflicted on participants. 00:13:56.197 --> 00:14:00.817 Many subjects experienced anxiety and guilt, leading to debates about the morality 00:14:00.817 --> 00:14:02.197 of such research practices. 00:14:03.057 --> 00:14:07.357 Critics also argued that the findings may not be generalisable to the real-world 00:14:07.357 --> 00:14:11.657 situations. that artificial laboratory setting and specific conditions may not 00:14:11.657 --> 00:14:15.737 accurately reflect how individuals behave in natural contexts. 00:14:17.017 --> 00:14:20.597 Some researchers contend that the experiment downplayed individual differences 00:14:20.597 --> 00:14:24.077 such as personality traits and moral values that can influence behaviour. 00:14:25.037 --> 00:14:30.497 This focus on situational factors may oversimplify the complexities of human morality. 00:14:31.197 --> 00:14:35.697 And the findings of the Milgram experiment can be misinterpreted or misused 00:14:35.697 --> 00:14:37.477 to justify harmful behaviours. 00:14:37.737 --> 00:14:42.117 The implications of obedience should be approached with caution to avoid promoting 00:14:42.117 --> 00:14:45.037 a deterministic view of human behaviour. 00:14:46.177 --> 00:14:50.077 So in summary, while the Milgram experiment significantly advanced our understanding 00:14:50.077 --> 00:14:55.457 of obedience and human behaviour, it also raised crucial ethical questions and 00:14:55.457 --> 00:14:59.857 highlighted the complexities of interpreting its findings in broader contexts. 00:15:01.409 --> 00:15:03.569 And now we're going to look at the Little Albert Experiment. 00:15:04.349 --> 00:15:09.389 The Little Albert Experiment was a landmark psychological study conducted by John B. 00:15:09.449 --> 00:15:13.889 Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, in 1920. 00:15:14.749 --> 00:15:18.169 This experiment was an essential part of the behaviourist movement, 00:15:18.449 --> 00:15:23.649 which emphasised the study of observable behaviour rather than the internal mental state. 00:15:23.649 --> 00:15:28.789 Watson and Rayner aimed to explore the concept of conditioned emotional response 00:15:28.789 --> 00:15:32.349 building on the earlier work of Ivan Pavlov. 00:15:33.069 --> 00:15:38.929 This study involved a nine-month-old infant known as Little Albert who was exposed 00:15:38.929 --> 00:15:42.969 to various stimuli to observe how emotional responses could be conditioned. 00:15:43.429 --> 00:15:47.049 The experiment was groundbreaking in demonstrating that fear could be learned 00:15:47.049 --> 00:15:52.169 through classical conditioning shifting the focus of psychology towards behaviourism. 00:15:53.569 --> 00:15:56.529 So in this experiment little Albert was presented with 00:15:56.529 --> 00:15:59.309 a white rat which he initially showed no fear 00:15:59.309 --> 00:16:02.469 towards the researchers then introduced a 00:16:02.469 --> 00:16:06.849 loud frightening sound by striking a metal bar with a hammer whenever Albert 00:16:06.849 --> 00:16:11.569 reached out towards the rat this pairing of the rat with the loud noise created 00:16:11.569 --> 00:16:17.549 a strong emotional response in this infant after several pairings Albert developed 00:16:17.549 --> 00:16:20.989 a fear for the rat, even in the absence of the noise. 00:16:21.369 --> 00:16:25.149 The researchers further tested Albert's reactions to other stimuli, 00:16:25.349 --> 00:16:30.749 including a rabbit, a dog and even a Santa Claus mask, demonstrating that this 00:16:30.749 --> 00:16:32.969 fear had generalised to similar objects. 00:16:33.629 --> 00:16:38.109 The study concluded that emotions could be conditioned and that little Albert's 00:16:38.109 --> 00:16:40.509 fear responses were learned rather than innate. 00:16:42.036 --> 00:16:45.736 The Little Albert experiment has been widely criticised for its ethical implications. 00:16:46.676 --> 00:16:50.696 Critics argue that the experiment was fundamentally unethical, 00:16:51.296 --> 00:16:54.796 as it caused psychological harm to a vulnerable infant without consent. 00:16:55.756 --> 00:16:59.436 There was no attempt to desensitise Little Albert after this experiment, 00:16:59.716 --> 00:17:03.176 leaving him with an intense fear of white rats and similar stimuli. 00:17:03.836 --> 00:17:08.536 Furthermore, the study lacked proper ethical oversight, which is now mandated 00:17:08.536 --> 00:17:10.176 in psychological research. 00:17:10.176 --> 00:17:15.596 Modern ethical guidelines require informed consent, the right to withdraw, 00:17:15.876 --> 00:17:21.036 and the provision for the participant's well-being, all of which were disregarded 00:17:21.036 --> 00:17:22.696 in Watson and Rayner's experiment. 00:17:23.516 --> 00:17:30.096 The Little Albert experiment is considered foundational in the field of psychology, 00:17:30.476 --> 00:17:35.276 particularly in behaviourism and the understanding of conditioned responses. 00:17:35.276 --> 00:17:40.136 The findings from this experiment influenced therapeutic practices, 00:17:40.236 --> 00:17:45.436 particularly in treating phobias through exposure therapy and systematic desensitization, 00:17:45.716 --> 00:17:50.676 and the use of controlled experiments paved the way for future behavioural research, 00:17:50.876 --> 00:17:54.376 establishing a methodology for studying psychological phenomena. 00:17:55.156 --> 00:17:59.756 However, the lack of ethical considerations led to significant distress for 00:17:59.756 --> 00:18:04.656 this child and raised questions about the responsibilities of researchers towards their subjects. 00:18:05.536 --> 00:18:10.396 Critics also argued that the findings from a single case study may not be applicable 00:18:10.396 --> 00:18:11.576 to broader populations, 00:18:11.956 -->

00:18:19.336 raising doubts about the experiment's generalizability, and the long-term effects 00:18:19.556 --> 00:18:21.116 on Little Albert were never assessed, 00:18:21.536 --> 00:18:25.956 leaving questions about the potential lasting impact of the induced fears. 00:18:26.556 --> 00:18:31.716 So in summary, while the Little Albert experiment provided valuable insights 00:18:31.716 --> 00:18:34.156 into behaviourism and conditioned responses, 00:18:34.636 --> 00:18:39.776 its ethical shortcoming and the potential harm to the subject may have led to 00:18:39.776 --> 00:18:44.116 lasting debates about the morality and methodology of psychological research. 00:18:46.834 --> 00:18:51.034 These three studies are seminal studies that have profoundly influenced the 00:18:51.034 --> 00:18:53.574 ethical landscape of psychological research. 00:18:54.394 --> 00:18:58.314 The Stanford Prison Experiment highlighted the need for informed consent, 00:18:58.394 --> 00:19:03.194 the importance of participants' emotional well-being, leading to stricter guidelines 00:19:03.194 --> 00:19:05.454 on the treatment of human subjects. 00:19:05.454 --> 00:19:11.254 The Milgram experiment raised critical questions about deception in research 00:19:11.254 --> 00:19:17.014 and the extent to which it is acceptable, and has since become a focal point 00:19:17.014 --> 00:19:19.014 in ethical discussions in psychology. 00:19:19.814 --> 00:19:26.874 The Little Albert experiment underscored the necessity for a long-term follow-up 00:19:26.874 --> 00:19:31.374 and the importance of protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children. 00:19:31.374 --> 00:19:36.394 These experiments collectively prompted the establishment of a more rigorous 00:19:36.394 --> 00:19:41.814 ethical standard in psychological research, emphasising the need to prioritise 00:19:41.814 --> 00:19:44.494 the welfare of participants over the pursuit of knowledge. 00:19:45.894 --> 00:19:50.254 Ethical considerations in psychological research are paramount for several reasons. 00:19:50.574 --> 00:19:56.194 To protect the physical and psychological wellbeing of participants is a foremost priority. 00:19:56.774 --> 00:20:01.094 Ethical guidelines ensure no harm comes to individuals doing research. 00:20:02.174 --> 00:20:06.234 Ethical practices also foster public trust in psychological research. 00:20:06.434 --> 00:20:10.794 When participants know that their rights and welfare are safeguarded they're 00:20:10.794 --> 00:20:12.594 more likely to engage in these studies. 00:20:13.214 --> 00:20:18.554 Ethical guidelines also promote responsible research practices which enhance 00:20:18.554 --> 00:20:21.654 the credibility and reliability of these findings. 00:20:22.134 --> 00:20:26.014 This ensures that the conclusions drawn from the research are valid and can 00:20:26.014 --> 00:20:28.754 be applied ethically in real world situations. 00:20:29.374 --> 00:20:33.054 And ensuring that participants are fully informed about the nature of the study 00:20:33.054 --> 00:20:40.214 potential risks and their right to withdraw at any time is crucial for obtaining genuine consent. 00:20:41.721 --> 00:20:47.821 The establishment of the IRBs marks a significant advancement in the ethical oversight of research. 00:20:48.581 --> 00:20:53.341 IRBs are committees responsible for reviewing research proposals to ensure that 00:20:53.341 --> 00:20:55.041 ethical standards are upheld. 00:20:55.981 --> 00:21:01.441 Their primary goal is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in research. 00:21:02.021 --> 00:21:07.281 Their formation was largely a response to ethical breaches highlighted by previous 00:21:07.281 --> 00:21:08.781 experiments among others. 00:21:08.781 --> 00:21:13.801 They adhere to federal regulations that mandate ethical review processes, 00:21:14.101 --> 00:21:18.141 ensuring that research involving human subjects is conducted responsibly. 00:21:18.921 --> 00:21:24.741 IRBs evaluate various aspects of research proposals, including the study's design, 00:21:24.961 --> 00:21:30.241 potential risks, recruitment methods, and the process of obtaining informed consent. 00:21:30.581 --> 00:21:36.321 This thorough review helps mitigate ethical concerns before the research begins. 00:21:36.321 --> 00:21:43.041 Beyond initial approval, IRBs also engage in the ongoing monitoring of research 00:21:43.041 --> 00:21:47.241 to ensure compliance with ethical standards throughout a study's duration. 00:21:47.961 --> 00:21:52.101 The lessons learned from these three experiments have fundamentally shaped the 00:21:52.101 --> 00:21:53.261 ethical guidelines of psychology. 00:21:54.141 --> 00:21:58.721 These guidelines prioritise participant welfare, foster public trust and have 00:21:58.721 --> 00:22:02.441 led to the establishment of IRBs, ensuring that ethical considerations remain 00:22:02.441 --> 00:22:04.961 at the forefront of psychological research. 00:22:04.961 --> 00:22:11.061 Search as we wrap up today's episodes i encourage you all to reflect on the 00:22:11.061 --> 00:22:15.941 vital balance between research and ethics and psychology the pursuit of knowledge 00:22:15.941 --> 00:22:20.701 is undoubtedly it's essential for advancing our understanding of human behavior 00:22:20.701 --> 00:22:24.061 but it also comes with significant moral responsibilities, 00:22:24.881 --> 00:22:28.961 consider how researchers can strive to uncover insights while respecting our 00:22:28.961 --> 00:22:30.961 rights and the the well-being of individuals. 00:22:31.681 --> 00:22:35.861 Your thoughts on these ethical dilemmas are important as we continue to explore 00:22:35.861 --> 00:22:37.421 the complexities of the field. 00:22:38.301 --> 00:22:43.041 So I'd like to thank you for joining me into this dive into the intriguing world 00:22:43.041 --> 00:22:44.241 of ethics and psychology. 00:22:44.581 --> 00:22:48.181 We've explored the complexities behind the Stanford experiment, 00:22:48.681 --> 00:22:54.041 the shocking findings of the Milgram experiment, and the controversial Little Albert study. 00:22:54.381 --> 00:22:57.501 But don't tune out just yet, in our next episode we're 00:22:57.501 --> 00:23:00.521 blasting off into the cosmos as we uncover the 00:23:00.521 --> 00:23:03.161 fascinating history of space travel from the 00:23:03.161 --> 00:23:06.021 first daring missions to the groundbreaking advancement they've 00:23:06.021 --> 00:23:11.501 taken us beyond our planet and how humanity has reached the stars so whether 00:23:11.501 --> 00:23:15.161 you're in space enthusiast or just curious about what lies beyond our atmosphere 00:23:15.161 --> 00:23:22.901 make sure to join me for episode two of random topics with jack until next time 00:23:22.901 --> 00:23:25.821 keep questioning and exploring.