A thought about ethical concerns: Little Albert
Have we become too ethical in psychological testing? Are we not ethical enough? It is, of course, a difficult question to answer. First of all, what are ethics? Merriam-Webster defines it as “an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior: a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong”. The simple answer would be to believe that we cannot be too ethical, and that we cannot voluntarily engage in “bad behavior” when it comes to any kind of testing. While it might as well be the truth, one can wonder how further science would be able to develop without certain ethical restrictions. I am certainly not advocating a “no rules, free-for-all” mentality, it is simply my curiosity speaking.
If we approach it from the historical perspective, it is safe to state that ethical restrictions were not necessarily a trending topic many decades ago. An example that readily comes to mind is the famous Little Albert experiment, which almost every psychology student knows about. Published in 1920, the aim of this study was to purposely induce phobia in a nine-month old emotionally stable child. From a modern point of view, it sounds like a terrible idea. Somehow, our sense of ethics has evolved to a point where such a study seems cruel, archaic, or just morally wrong. However, one cannot deny that Little Albert, through his involuntary participation in this study, has become a landmark of classical conditioning. Researchers had empirical evidence that classical conditioning worked on humans, successfully replicating Pavlov’s experiments on dogs.
Where should the line be drawn? In this particular scenario, would desensitization following the study have been enough to make it “ethical” by modern standards? (Following the 1920 study, the researchers had not desensitized Little Albert to rats/rodents, but some argue that the natural environment eventually desensitized him). Is the idea of inducing phobia in an infant simply unacceptable, even with the parent(s)’ consent? Some might affirm, naturally, that the participant himself (in this case, Little Albert) could not possibly give his consent. By that logic, the participant would have to be old enough to be able to provide said consent. However, being aware of the purpose of the study might nullify attempts to induce a given phobia. Furthermore, the idea that researchers should not voluntarily cause important amounts of psychological and physiological stress to a participant is, in a word, logical. What if the participant was willing to undergo significant stress/pain or a certain level of trauma (i.e. enough to induce a phobia)? The pharmaceutical industry relies on willing (and paid) participants to test new medication and its possible side effects, including death. Can the psychological testing industry rely on the same principle?
From a simple question sprung numerous further questions. Although the “safe” answer is to affirm that we cannot be too ethical, it is still interesting to wonder what would happen if we were to deviate from ethical norms.
“Ethic.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
