Running Head: READING QUESTION: KELMAN 1

Running head: READING QUESTION: KELMAN 1

Reading Question: Kelman

Student’s Name

School’s Name

Student’s NameSeptember 13, 2015

Social PsychologyProfessor’s Name[PP1]

READING QUESTION: KELMAN 1

Reading Question: Kelman[PP2]

I was taughtlearned[PP3] in my Introduction to Psychological Research class that the code of ethics the Institutional Review Board (IRB) uses for psychologists looking to do conduct a research study involving peoplehuman subjects, states that a researcher must closely guard the participants’ welfare of the participants must be maintained. Along with protecting research participants’' welfare, the IRB also makes surerequires that all participants are be fit to give consent.The researcher must provide all information regarding the study’s purpose and potential risks to the participants prior to conducting the study. The researcher must also and are sufficiently debrief[PP4]edparticipants at the conclusion ofonce the study is concluded. This is relevant because for much of what Ssocial Ppsychologists[PP5]want to study,they need there needs to maintain some secrecy from the participants. If pParticipants’ knowing too much information about the a study could taint the results and observations the researchers collects as data.could be tainted by Participantsparticipatescould consciously, or unconsciouslyskew results through having self-fulfillinged prophecies, the placebo effects, or a desire to gain the researcher’s approval (i.e., modifyingied behaviors that in a way is counter to their natural behavioral inclinations). However, Herbert C. Kelman,;aaSsocial pPsychologist has taken on the task of [PP6]questioneding the necessity of this practice and highlighteding the potential adverse effects such secrecyit could have on the field of psychology and on the participants themselves.

There are three main concerns that Kelman (insert year[PP7]) identified [PP8]three main concerns has with researchers’ use of deceit being used by researchers: 1) and they are the underlying ethics behind it, 2) the belief that deceit is becoming too engrained into research [PP9]designs just for it for fun of itnot out of necessity but habit, and finally; 3) the negative impact this practice could have that as society (i.e., social psychologists’' study participants) becomes more aware of the deceitfulways of psychology researchers use. Kelman asserted that such public awareness it could negatively affect the public’ss' image of psychologists and ultimately the reliability of any data they collect during their studiesresearch. Kelman illustrated his concern through using well- known studies from the past as evidence.

With the combination of my knowledge ofon the basic ethical guidelines the Internal Review BoardIRB[PP10]holds as their standardsestablished along with Kelman’'s argument against using/ limiting deceit in social psychology studies, I asked myself the following question: “"Would I approve of Milgram’'s study on obedience"?”I would[PP11]. What would be an alternative method? Ilf Milgram and his team were had been completely forward forthcoming with the participants that they were studyingtheyobserved in their obedience study to see whether Nazi soldiers were really truly evil or just following orders, would that have yielded reliable results? I would say no. Who wants to find out/ let the world knowdiscover about themselves and share with others the truth that Hitler they could have been convinced by Hitlerthem to help kill eradicate millions of people? That The information that the study concerned blind obedience of a murderous tyrant would make participants in the study modify of their conduct to give people others the best impression of themselves as possible. The design of Milgram's study didn'tdid not [PP12]inflict harm on the participants through his study design. At worst, the designItmay have merely hurt their egos. Social pPsychologists’' job is to understand human behavior and, particularly, the ways in whichasit is influenced by society influences that behavior. Milgram’'s study design accurately was perfect in the sense that it reproduced real-world conditions in which people could choose mimicked on a small scale how someone could be convinced to inflict harm on others in a realistic situation through the influence of a charismatic leader.

Either way, people will be offended by view the findings results as offensive or find some way to deny the reliability of the study’'s conclusions because of the lack of hard evidence showing how your the average citizen could fall into the trap of being convinced to intentionally inflicted harm on others. Should we as a societymembers of society remain ill-informed on the true nature of humanitysin order to[PP13] maintain the false belief many have of themselves as being perfect? I personally think that inIn[PP14] this particular study, the knowledge gained is more important than coddling egos. There are some issues I agreed with Kelman on some issues, such as the Mulder and Stemerding study[PP15]. This is because that studyithad true harmful implications on caused serious harm to peoples' participants’ livelihoods, which is about as far as my ethical concerns for the use of deceit goes. In my opinion Aas long as participants are adequately warned about the risks of the study prior to consenting and are debriefed after the study is donecomplete, the use of deceit is okay appropriate if when honesty could skew the results. I am a strong advocate for Aaron T. Beck’s'scCognitive bBehavioral tTherapy[PP16] and challenging clients’distorted thoughts, so I would utilized that method and thoroughly explain the importance of the study and why the reason accurately replicating the situation is necessary.I would also along with sincerely insuring assure them the participants that I as a researcher had no ill intentions when I withheld some certain details about the studyinformation[PP17].

[PP1]For APA, you need a title page with the title of your essay, your name, and your school’s name.

[PP2]In APA, headings should be in bold type.

[PP3]When possible, avoid the passive. “I learned” is stronger than “I was taught.”

[PP4]What do you mean by “debrief”?

[PP5]Only capitalize formal titles (and only when they precede a person’s name), for example, Professor Smith vs. professors.

[PP6]APA prefers concise language. “Taken on the task of questioning” is the same as “questioning.”

[PP7]This sentence requiresa citation. Include the year of the publication in parentheses following the author’s name, for example, (Smith, 2015).

[PP8]Avoid sentence constructions using “there is/are” because such language is indirect and clunky.

[PP9]APA cautions against using judgmental language when discussing researchers. I recommend avoiding language like “just for the fun of it.”

[PP10]Once an acronym or abbreviation is introduced, it must be used consistently.

[PP11]Why?

[PP12]Avoid contractions in academic writing.

[PP13]Instead of using “in order to,” APA recommends using “to.”

[PP14]There is no need to say “I think.” Unless citing a source, readers know that it is the author offering his or her thoughts and opinions.

[PP15]I recommend very briefly describing this study to give readers enough to understand why this fits into your discussion.

[PP16]The names of theories and treatments (excepting those of brand name drugs) need not be capitalized.

[PP17]APA requires a reference page, citing Kelman at the very least. I also recommend citing Beck, Milgram, and Mulder and Stemerding.