Provide feedback on the summaries that include at least one follow-up question:

1st Summary:

A well know unethical experiment conducted by a psychologist named John B. Watson and his apprentice Rayner was an experiment meant to discover if classical conditioning works the same on humans as it did on animals. In conducting this experiment, Mr. Watson used Little Albert as his participant. It is said that he did receive consent from Little Albert's mom however, there is no documentation showing this and we do not know if Little Albert's mom was aware that Watson would be creating fear in Little Albert. In the experiment, Watson exposed Little Albert to a rat and he did not show any opposition to the rat's presence he did this with other furry animals as well with the same results. However, when Little Albert was exposed to the rat again with the addition of loud noises he got upset the same reaction occurred with the other animals. When the sound was removed and anytime he was exposed to the rat or any other furry animals in the experiment he would then become upset. This experiment was extremely unethical by today's standards for numerous reasons. First, there was no proper informed consent (Saul, 2023). Second Mr. Watson and his apprentice were causing emotional harm to the child by creating fear in him (Saul, 2023). Then third, they never rectified the fear they had instilled in him which could cause him emotional distress later down the road (Saul, 2023).

When this experiment was conducted there was not an ethical code of conduct to abide by. I used to wonder why we even considered these botched unethical experiments when I was first studying psychology but now I realize that we must acknowledge them because if we do not we will continue to repeat history. This has been a very eye-opening assignment for me.

2nd Summary:

The "Milgram Experiment" is a particularly unethical study I've frequently run into during my studies. Stanley Milgram designed this experiment to measure obedience in which two participantsone of whom was a covert actorwere split into two rooms where they could only hear one another. A series of questions were then read to the actor by the test subject. The test subject would press a button that "shocked" the actor with electricity every time the actor gave an erroneous response. Even though many of the test volunteers voiced a desire to halt the experiment at the first sounds of screaming, almost all of them persisted in pressing the button after being assured that they would not be held personally accountable for any outcomes. The ethical issues raised by this experiment are the right to withdraw, participant protection, and deception. Because the volunteers were made to think they were shocking actual people, the experiment was ruled unethical. However, Milgram countered that deceit was essential to achieving the experiment's goals. Furthermore, the experiment's lack of protection for its participants raised additional ethical concerns. Participants in the study went through difficult conditions that might have contributed to psychological damage. In addition, a few participants were concerned about the potential harm they might be causing to other participants. Because they were temporary, the participants were informed, and they weren't providing shocks, Milgram claimed that these effects were morally acceptable. Lastly, the right to withdraw was the final ethical dilemma in Milgram's experiment. According to the BPS, researchers must communicate to participants that they are free to leave at any moment, regardless of compensation. Four verbal nudges were given by the experimenter, most of which served to dissuade departure from the study: Please continue, the experiment demands that you continue, it is imperative that you continue, and you have no choice but to continue. The results indicated that 65% of individuals persisted in administering shocks despite being aware of how their behavior had an adverse effect on other people. This concluded that, under the correct conditions, regular individuals will follow unjust directives. Overall, even though the experiment's goal was to see how willingly the typical person would submit to authority figures' demands, even if those demands were immoral or illogical, ethical questions continued to arise.