Ethics are a very important factor to consider when forming a psychological experiment. There are many things to take into account. There is the obvious such as will the participant be harmed either physically or emotionally, to the more tricky matters of ethics such as how much should the participant be told about the means of the experiment.
This all sounds pretty straight forward however researchers can sometimes find themselves with the dilemma of conflicting ethics and despite the strict guidelines of ethics they have to use their own opinions to decide what the most ethical thing to do. This puts psychologists in a very responsible and influential position and often the matter is put forward to other psychologists to come to a conclusion.
Such conflicting ethics are much more common that one might expect. Especially when it comes to the issues of ‘informed consent’ and keeping the validity of the experiment. For example, take Milgrams behavioural study of obedience (1963). I will not go into details as I am sure most of you are aware of the study I am referring to. This experiment was criticised heavily for being unethical as it caused many participants short term and, in some cases, long term trauma. One way of reducing such stress would have been to tell the participants that they were in fact not giving shocks to an authentic participant but the shouts they could hear were only simulated by a sound machine. If Milgram were to have done this the experiment could have in no way been seen as unethical. However, if the participants had been told this they would not have acted in a natural way and the results of the study would not be valid. They would also be a lot more chance of them guessing what the experiment was trying to research which would lead to the problem of ‘demand characteristics’. This is when the participant becomes figures out (or thinks they have) how the researcher is expecting them to act so acts in this way and not how they would otherwise, or if the conditions in the experiment were presented to them in a real life situation.
So, although ethics may have gone against what Milgram did, he did it anyway. He’s studies opened everyones eyes to how and why people do unspeakable things when told to by someone in perceived authority. Before he did the study psychologists estimated only 3% of those studied would administer the fatal shock and these people would be sadistic or mentally unstable. Milgrams study found that 65% of the population administered the fatal shock. Therefore of Milgram had sticked to the rules of ethics this major breakthrough would have never happened.
It makes you wonder, how many experiments could be done if ethics were not there to restrict them and even if they did cause temporary harm to participants the findings such studies could be so beneficial that the ends justify the means. Also, every researcher has to abide by the ethics rules, but who says that those are ethical? For all we know there could be a huge unethical issue hidden in there that we all just accept to be ethical because the guidelines say so. We can never know the appropriate place to put the line between when to follow such guidelines and when to use our own common sense. Ethics restricts psychology.
libbyayres 
What’s important to note is that ethics were not as “set in stone” when the Milgram study was conducted as they are today. The Code of Ethics was established almost as a direct result of the outcomes from the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments, due to the fact that the participants were placed in situations that caused short and long term psychological trauma.
When it comes to “end justifies the means”, this is down to personal opinion. Some people, like myself, believe that sometimes the boundaries of ethics can be pushed just slightly further than the allowance if it means obtaining results that are truly significant. However, I don’t believe that ethics restrict psychology. They are there to ensure that psychological research can move forward without the risk of placing participants in situations that can cause long term psychological, and possibly even physical, stress and harm.
To a certain extent it can be argued that yes ethical guidelines to restrict the research that is conducted today. Although both Milgrams and Zimbardos experiments we highly unethical the findings were useful to society. It is wrong to put participants in circumstances that may cause psychological harm, however research is not being conducted today due to abiding by the ethical restrictions put in place.
I would agree that in some circumstances yes the ends do justify the means. Although then the issue as to what can be considered acceptable arises and a revised set of ethical guidelines would be needed to account for the research that would fall in to a category of ends justify means.
Ethical restrictions are put in place for a reason so although in some cases of research where the ends would justify the means the ethical restrictions should be followed, even if they may restrict research in psychology.
Like one of the above comments states, Ethics weren’t established until after the Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971. This was due to the experiment initially being stopped six days in as the participant’s physical and mental health was being put at risk.
I agree with you in terms of ethics being a limiting factor within psychology but it provides a more stable platform for experiments to be undertaken and enables protection for participants.
It is fair to say that ethics causes limitation on psychological research as necessary deception and many other factors might be needed in order to achieve the most valid and reliable results. You can see in Milgrams study that the results obtained would not be able to be achieved if ethics was involved as the limitations would not allow the deception necessary for the study to succeed. However the psychological damage caused to some of the participants is the exact reason why ethics are necessary as we have to think is it worth the safety of a person to obtain the results of a psychological study.
As the above comments suggest, ethics were not in fact established until after the Stanford prison experiment, some suggest as a direct action against such experiments happening again due to the potential physical and mental harm to participants. I do agree with you that ethics are a limiting factor however they provide a much more stable base in which to carry out experiments which in turn provides protection for participants.
In my opinion though, If the end result of an experiment will be truly significant then I believe this justifies pushing the boundaries slightly further than the allowance. This is why i believe that ethics do not restrict psychology; there are there to ensure we can move forward in research without causing long term harm to our participants. The coveted end result is obtaining significant data without breaching the regulations, however as I’ve mentioned, if placing people under slight stress (nothing that will affect how they live or the rest of their lives) is how we get to this result, then so be it.