- 65% of those in Milgram’s study were willing to give deadly shocks because of authority.
- The Stanford Prison Experiment showed how rapidly people accept harmful roles.
- The Little Albert experiment made a child have fears for life without asking parents first.
- The Monster Study resulted in actual and lasting mental hurt from being called names about speech.
- These very bad psychology experiments caused current rules for ethical research to be made.
Well-known psychology finds often came at a high ethical price. Many people recall the insights they showed, but fewer think about the emotional harm done to those involved. Here, we look at some of the most infamous psychology experiments, their troubling ways of doing things, and if such studies should be taught in class—or just be history. See what you know at the end with a science quiz to check your knowledge about the bad side of behavior research.
The Part Experimenting Plays in Psychology
Psychology is mainly about trying to understand why people act the way they do—the what, how, and why behind what we choose, feel, and think. Psychology experiments let those who study this check ideas using set things to see and places, finding cause-and-effect links between things that change. Different from brain science or genes, psychology often deals with personal feelings, making sure experiments are planned well and watched over ethically very important.
However, people are not animals used for labs. Anytime research uses people, thinking about what is right and wrong must be most important. Researchers have to be very careful to find new things but not hurt people. Even good studies can go wrong if they use lies, force, or are careless. When studies go past what is right, they are sad but strong reminders of the duty that comes with asking questions in science.
Infamous Case #1: The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)
Very well known as one of the most infamous psychology studies in recent times, the Stanford Prison Experiment was made by Dr. Philip Zimbardo to see how people change when they are in charge or are made to obey. A group of 24 college students agreed to be part of a fake prison—some were picked randomly to be guards, and others to be prisoners, in the basement of Stanford University.
Even though it was supposed to last two weeks, the experiment got so dangerously uncontrolled it had to be stopped after only six days. Guards turned out to be more and more mean and bossy, making prisoners feel ashamed, not giving them food, and making them do bad things. At the same time, “prisoners” started to believe they were really prisoners and started to show signs of bad emotional trouble, like crying, anger, and sick feelings that were all in their heads.
The study broke many rules of what is right: those taking part were not told how bad the experiment would get, they were told not to quit, and Zimbardo himself acted as someone in charge in the prison, which made it hard for him to be fair.
Important Idea: Accepting social roles can happen very fast, making normal people able to do very cruel things in places like prisons (Zimbardo, 1973).
Even many years later, the Stanford Prison Experiment is still a talked-about example when talking about justice systems, police being too rough, and power in big groups.
Infamous Case #2: The Milgram Obedience Studies (1961)
Coming from the time after the Holocaust, Stanley Milgram wanted to see about a scary question: Could normal people do bad things if they were told to by someone in charge? His now well-known psychology experiments would show worrying results.
People who volunteered were told they were in a study about memory and punishment. One person taking part (who was acting) was put in a chair with wires on them, while the real person taking part gave electric shocks for every wrong answer. When a person in a white coat said “Please keep going,” most people gave more shock, even though they could hear the actor acting like they were in pain.
A shocking 65% of people taking part went to the highest shock level of 450 volts, even when the actor stopped making noise—suggesting they might be passed out or dead (Blass, 1999).
Ethical worries are about the very high stress put on people taking part, not talking to them enough about what happened after, and using lies to make a very upsetting event. Even though people taking part were told later about the lies, many still said they had nervous breakdowns, trauma, and did not trust researchers for a long time after.
These finds show the disturbing ability of people to give up their own sense of right and wrong when told to by people in charge—and bring up questions still important when looking at how soldiers act, how companies make sure people follow rules, and going against the rules.
Infamous Case #3: The Little Albert Experiment (1920)
Important psychologist John B. Watson, who started behaviorism, wanted to prove that feelings could be learned. With his coworker Rosalie Rayner, he did one of the first—and most infamous—psychology experiments using a child as the one being studied.
Little Albert, an 11-month-old baby, was shown different things including rabbits, dogs, and rats. At first not scared, Albert was then shown these animals at the same time as a loud scary sound of a metal bar hit behind his head.
Over time, Albert started to cry just when he saw the white rat, and the fear spread to anything white and soft—including dogs, a Santa Claus mask, and even a fur coat.
This experiment brings up very clear ethical warning signs. Albert’s mother was not fully told about how it would be done or what could happen, and he was never helped to stop being afraid of the things he was made to fear. What happened to him mentally for a long time is not known for sure, but those who study this now worry about very bad harm (Beck et al., 2009).
Looking back, using a child’s feelings without asking first—or fixing the problem later—sets a bad example. Even though it showed important ideas about behavior, this case makes clear why ethical ways of doing things must think about how old someone is, if they are easily hurt, and if they can choose to stop being part of it.
Infamous Case #4: The Monster Study (1939)
Sometimes trying to do good can end up very bad. University of Iowa researcher Wendell Johnson wanted to learn about what causes stuttering. But the study he did caused harm that would later make the whole school feel ashamed.
Called the “Monster Study,” Johnson and a student named Mary Tudor got 22 kids who were orphans and put them in groups to be studied and groups to be controlled. Kids in the study group were told many times that they were stutterers and made to feel bad about how they talked—even though they did not have any talking problems before.
Instead of helping them, researchers gave bad feedback and told them directly they were wrong. Many of the kids started to have problems feeling good about themselves, worry, and talking problems that kept going even when they were adults.
They did not get permission from anyone who could really say yes for the kids. The orphans were seen as not important under a very cruel way of thinking. The study stayed hidden for many years until reporters found out about it in the early 2000s, causing people to be very angry and formal apologies to be made.
This case makes bigger the worries about using people who can be easily hurt in research—especially when power makes it so those taking part cannot know or fight against being used.
Infamous Case #5: The Bobo Doll Experiment (1961)
Not all infamous psychology studies caused harm or forced people, but that does not mean they are ethically okay. Social thought expert Albert Bandura did the well-known Bobo Doll experiment to see how kids learn to be mean by watching.
Kids watched adults play either in a mean way or a calm way with a Bobo doll—a toy that fills with air and bounces back up when hit. Those who saw mean behavior were much more likely to do the same, not just copying, but sometimes doing even worse mean actions that they had not even seen.
The study was very important in knowing how we learn by watching and how media affects how kids act. It backed up the growing idea that seeing violent behavior could make people want to be mean without being told to be.
But worries are still there: Should kids be shown violent acts for research at all? Were the feelings or actions that came after these viewings watched for a long time? How well do these lab finds fit with real complex situations?
Compared to other things on this list, the Bobo Doll experiment may seem not bad—but it makes us think about how kids’ minds are shaped in small steps over time.
Ethical Rules Then & Now
Before the 1970s, ethical rules in social science were almost not there. The basic ideas—permission, making harm as little as possible, people taking part being able to stop—were either not well explained or totally ignored. Today, that has changed a lot, mostly because of the very bad mistakes talked about above.
The big change happened when the Belmont Report was released in 1979, which set down the three main parts of ethical research
- Respect for People: Accepting people’s right to choose by getting their permission after telling them what is going on.
- Doing Good: Making good things as big as possible while making harm as small as possible.
- Fairness: Making sure everyone is treated fairly and picked to be part of things in a fair way.
Also, making Groups That Review How Things Are Done (IRBs) now makes it needed for research plans to be checked ethically before anyone is asked to be studied. Looking at risks, detailed plans, and ways to get permission are needed in these reviews. For psychology studies, especially when kids or people who are easily hurt are involved, IRB permission is a must.
Current ways—like good talking about what happened after, lasting rights for those taking part, and school checks—make today’s research much more kind and open, but still not without problems.
Why These Experiments Still Matter
It is easy to think of these psychology experiments as old mistakes from the past, but they have given us basic ideas
- The obedience idea is now a main part in how companies are run, political science, and training for soldiers.
- The role acceptance model helps tell us about fixing prisons, rules for people who hire, and studies of using power badly.
- Learned emotional reactions, from Little Albert, started the base for facing fears therapy.
- Learning by watching models started whole movements in changing schools and being careful with media.
- The speech problem area was changed (and made to act) by the Monster Study’s ethical mistakes.
But maybe the most lasting thing they did is change how we do science now—with respect, openness, and being responsible.
Knowing about, judging, and even teaching these studies—bad parts and all—is important not to say they were okay, but to learn from them.
Should These Experiments Be Stopped from Being Talked About?
Many teachers say that even talking about these studies keeps bad research ways going. Others say that cleaning up history does more harm, stopping future people from knowing the real harms of science that is not ethical.
Now with computers watching us, programs affecting us, and computers guessing how we will act using AI, stopping talk may block needed talk to control the next group of ethical unclear areas. Even though none of these infamous experiments would pass today’s IRBs, having them in books, classes, and public talk is still very important.
Are We Still Going Too Far Ethically?
Psychology now has new areas with very big ethical problems: taking data from bodies, using fake world therapies, mental health tests by computers that learn, and more. As these tools get ahead of our ethical rules, what we learned from past mistakes becomes even more important.
For example, do users know how their mental data is used in marketing to their brains? When AIs guess who might try to kill themselves based on social media, what safety steps are there?
As science asks hard questions of our sense of right and wrong, society must grow with ethical asking—not just making new things technically.
Public Trust in Psychology and Science
Public trust is easy to break. When unethical psychology studies are found—even if they are old or new—trust in medical science, behavior research, and leaders of society can go down. Being open, being responsible, and talking about things all the time are not just choices; they are musts.
Schools should lead this effort by talking about studies that cause argument openly, not being scared. Facing mistakes is an ethical thing to do itself.
Let Ethical Asking Lead the Way
Studying the most infamous psychology experiments is not about being interested in sad things—it is about making a more caring, responsible science. Every mistake on this list finally caused changes, rules, and thoughts that made human research better.
Let these stories make you think harder about what you click next, what you ask next, what you answer next on a science quiz. Asking questions is strong, but feeling for others is progress.
Citations
- Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding “Little Albert”: A trip to John B. Watson’s baby lab. American Psychologist, 64(7), 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017055
- Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram way of doing things after 35 years: Some things we now know about obeying people in charge. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x
- Spradley, J. P. (2003). The “Monster Study” Again. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 28(3), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-730X(03)00028-2
- Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). The Stanford Prison Experiment: A made-up study of the psychology of being in prison done at Stanford University. Naval Research Reviews, 30, 4–17. https://www.prisonexp.org/
Which experiment surprised you the most—or made you feel uneasy? Tell us what you think in the comments.
