Therefore defenders like Smith and Richardson conducted a study which indicated that the not only the use of deception had no harm for participants, but participants in deception experiments enjoyed the study more than the ones in non-deception studies. In regards with Milgram’s experiments, many defenders mentioned that based on subjects’ self-report, only 4 percent of subjects felt discomfort in the study, whereas, critics believed this positive reaction toward the study was due to the fact that the study indeed generated negative feelings of being used in the participants leading them to compensate this bad feeling by saying that the study was worthwhile and interesting. Again, to defend the use of deception in milligram’s study, Berschied (1973) argued that these criticisms are due to the outcome of the Milgram’s study, not the use of deception per se. If the outcome was different in a way that participants did not obey Milgram, no one would challenge his study; therefore these criticisms are referred to the perception of harm due to obedience, not the use of deception (Christensen, 1984). These all indicate the flow of critical and defensive arguments raised after the Milgram’s experiment, making the use of deception a controversial
Therefore defenders like Smith and Richardson conducted a study which indicated that the not only the use of deception had no harm for participants, but participants in deception experiments enjoyed the study more than the ones in non-deception studies. In regards with Milgram’s experiments, many defenders mentioned that based on subjects’ self-report, only 4 percent of subjects felt discomfort in the study, whereas, critics believed this positive reaction toward the study was due to the fact that the study indeed generated negative feelings of being used in the participants leading them to compensate this bad feeling by saying that the study was worthwhile and interesting. Again, to defend the use of deception in milligram’s study, Berschied (1973) argued that these criticisms are due to the outcome of the Milgram’s study, not the use of deception per se. If the outcome was different in a way that participants did not obey Milgram, no one would challenge his study; therefore these criticisms are referred to the perception of harm due to obedience, not the use of deception (Christensen, 1984). These all indicate the flow of critical and defensive arguments raised after the Milgram’s experiment, making the use of deception a controversial