Review each of the research scenarios described below and discuss any concerns you see, Be sure to specifically address each of the following questions for each study.

• Overall, are there any ethical issues that should be raised concerning the research described?
• What specific ethical problems can be identified in each example (e.g., invasion of privacy, deception, stress, debriefing, and so on)?
• How could the ethical problems be remedied? That is, what steps could a researcher take to ensure that the subjects are treated ethically? (For this question, tell students not to worry about how the validity of the study would be affected.)
• What impact would any remedies for ethical issues have on the internal and external validity of the results for each research example?

1. Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter (1976) conducted a study investigating whether an invasion of personal space is physiologically, as well as psychologically, arousing. The experiment was run in a men's lavatory in which the investigators closed off one or another urinal. Participants were forced to urinate either in the urinal next to a male confederate of the experimenter or in a urinal one away from the confederate. A second confederate positioned in a toilet stall adjacent to the urinals observed the subjects via periscope and recorded the latency to onset of urination and its duration.
2. In a classic experiment on cognitive dissonance theory, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants engage in an extremely boring task. After doing this task, participants were asked if they would help out in the experiment with the next participant, because the regular assistant did not show up. Each accomplice-participant was asked to tell the next participant that the task was interesting and exciting. For telling this little white lie, the accomplice-participant was promised payment of either $1 or $20, depending on the assigned condition. The experiment was designed to see if the amount of money promised affected the accomplice-participant's attitude toward the boring task. At the end of the experiment, participants were asked to return the money.
3. In his classic study of obedience to authority, Milgram (1963) led participants to believe they were administering painful shocks to another participant (actually a confederate of the experimenter who was receiving no shocks) in a bogus learning experiment. Participants were told that each time the "learner" made a mistake, an electric shock of increasing intensity (15-450 volts) must be delivered. In some conditions, the "learner" screamed and pounded on the wall. Participants who expressed reluctance to continue were told that they "must go on." The experiment examined whether participants would obey the experimenter's orders to continue delivering shocks.
4. In a simulation study of plea bargaining, Gregory, Mowen, and Linder (1978) gave false feedback to undergraduate participants. Participants sat in a waiting room waiting for the experiment to begin. In one condition, a participant who had just been in the experiment (who was actually a confederate of the experimenter) was told to tell the awaiting participant that most of the answers to the test that was yet to be taken were "B." In a second condition, no information was given to the waiting participant. After the participant took the test, the experimenter accused the participant of cheating and said that it was a serious matter that would have to be presented to a review board for action. Participants were led to believe that the consequences of the accused cheating were severe. The participants were told that if they admitted cheating, they would simply lose credit for participating in the experiment.
5. In a field experiment conducted by Harari, Harari, and White (1985), male participants walking alone or in groups were exposed to a simulated rape. As participants walked along a path to a parking lot, a male and a female confederate of the experimenters acted out a simulated rape. (The male grabbed the female around the waist, put his hand over her mouth, and dragged her into some bushes. The female screamed for help.) Observers stationed at various points recorded the number of participants who offered help. Prior to actual intervention, participants were stopped and told of the true purpose of the experiment. The results showed that 85 percent of the participants walking in groups offered help to the victim, whereas 65 percent of the participants walking alone offered help. Support was found for the idea that individuals in groups are as likely, if not more likely, to help when the victim is clearly in need of help.
6. To test the effects of controllability on stress responses, Weiss (1971) administered electric shock to rats. Three rats were run together in a yoked procedure. One rat in the triad could avoid or escape the electric shock by making a response. A second rat received the same number of shocks of the same duration as the first rat but could neither avoid nor escape them. The third rat received no shocks. Immediately after the experimental session, the rats were removed from the test chambers and sacrificed. Their stomachs were then inspected for ulcers. The rats that lacked control over the shock had developed extensive lesioning, whereas neither the control rats (those receiving no shocks) nor those that could avoid or escape the shock showed much damage.