DOCSLIB.ORG

Milgram's Experiment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Milgram's Experiment Internal properties constrain behavior across a wide variety of contexts: traits, virtues . In psychology, emphasis on temperament, personality, heritable tendencies to respond in characteristic ways Behavior is driven by both salient features of environment (conscious) and implicit, often unrecognized ones. e.g., tendency to help depends on mood effects (finding $) Globalism (character traits, virtues): . Consistency – character and personality traits are reliably manifested in trait-relevant behavior across a diversity of trait-relevant eliciting conditions that may vary widely in their conduciveness to the manifestation of the trait in question; . Stability – traits are manifested in similar conditions over time. Evaluative integration. Honest people also kind etc 1. trans-situational correlations 2. social influences 3. mood effects 4. fundamental attribution error. Morally significant behavior is affected by features of the immediate situation which: 1. are not in themselves of moral significance. 2. Are not of great motivational significance. 3. Are not well known either to laypeople or to the philosophical literature. 4. Are numerous 5. Do not form a coherent class from the point of view of folk psychology Milgram Darley & Batson Zimbardo Asch Diffusion of responsibility McDonalds case The Milgram Experiment was a series of social psychology experiments conducted in the early 1960s by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. The experiments began just 3 months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, and were designed to answer the question: Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? . Subjects were recruited for the Yale study through newspaper ads and by direct mail. The experiments took place in two rooms in the basement of a university building. The experiment was advertised as lasting one hour, for which the respondents would be paid $4.50 whether they completed the task or not. The participants were men between the ages of 20 and 50, from all educational backgrounds, ranging from an elementary school dropout to participants with doctoral degrees. The role of the experimenter was played by a very stern biology teacher dressed in a white technician’s coat. Participants arrived to meet the experimenter, as well as another “volunteer” for the experiment. This “volunteer” was in fact an actor trained to play the part. The true volunteer and the other “volunteer” were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment to test the effects of punishment on learning. A slip of paper was then give to each of them. The true volunteer was led to believe that one slip said “Learner” and the other said “Teacher”, and that both participants had been given the slip randomly. In fact, both slips said “Teacher”, but the actor claimed to have the slip that said “Learner”, thus guaranteeing that the participant was the “Teacher”. At this point, the newly-appointed Teacher and Learner were separated into different rooms where they could communicate verbally but not see each other. (In one version of the experiment, the Learner was sure to mention casually to the Teacher that he had a heart condition.) . To begin, the Teacher was given a sample 45-volt shock from an electro-shock generator by the Experimenter. The reason for this was to demonstrate to the Teacher the nature of the shock that the Learner would supposedly receive during the experiment each time he gave a wrong answer. .The shock generator that the Teacher was told to operate had 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each switch was labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. .Each switch also had a rating, ranging from Slight shock to Danger: Severe shock. The final two switches being labeled XXX. The subjects of the experiment (ie. the “Teachers”) believed that for each wrong answer, the Learner would receive actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the Learner was separated from the Teacher, the Learner set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. .The Teacher was then given a list of word pairs, which he was to teach to the Learner. The Teacher began by reading the list of words pairs to the Learner. The Teacher would then read the first word of each pair, and then read four possible answers. The Learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the Learner was correct, the Teacher would proceed to the next word pair. If the answer was incorrect, the learner would receive a shock, with the voltage increasing with each wrong answer. .At 75 volts the learner would begin to grunt with pain. At 120 he would start to shout that the shocks were becoming painful. At 150 he would cry out that he had enough of the experiment. His protestations would turn to agonised screams at 270 volts. .At 300 he would shout in desperation that he would no longer provide answers (the experimenter would inform the teacher that no answer was a wrong answer). Beyond 315 volts the learner was silent. At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the Learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the Learner. If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order: . Please continue. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no other choice – you must go on. .If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. Before the experiment was conducted, Milgram polled 14 Yale senior psychology majors as to what the results would be. All respondents believed that only a sadistic few (average 1.2%) would be prepared to give the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues, and found that they believed very few subjects would go beyond a very strong shock. Implication: fundamental attribution error? . In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65% (26 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment’s final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable doing so. .Everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, with some even saying that they would return the cheque for the money they were paid. .No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level. .Similar experiments all around the world produced similar results. Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". JPSP, 1973, 27, 100-108. 40 Subjects: Princeton Theological Seminary students Instructed they would be giving a talk in another building on campus . Half on the Good Samaritan Parable . Half on jobs available "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him.“ Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." Varied how much time subjects had to walk across campus . High hurry, medium, no hurry On the way, they encountered a man slumped on the ground in need of medical aid, who coughed twice as they passed 40 subjects, 16 offered help, 24 did not . Low hurry group: 65% offered help . Medium hurry group: 45% . High hurry: 10% . Content of talk did not have significant effect on helping! 70+ occurrences in 30 states . Caller identifies himself as a police officer, tells floor supervisor to take an employee (or customer) to back room to interrogate about suspected theft, caller demands escalate to strip search, spanking, even sex acts . 2004 Mt Washington, Kentucky case, 3 ½ hour false arrest .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Destructiveness and Authority: the Milgram Experiments and the Perpetration of Genocide
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1995 Human Destructiveness and Authority: The Milgram Experiments and the Perpetration of Genocide Steven Lee Lobb College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Lobb, Steven Lee, "Human Destructiveness and Authority: The Milgram Experiments and the Perpetration of Genocide" (1995). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625988. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-yeze-bv41 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS AND AUTHORITY: THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENTS AND THE PERPETRATION OF GENOCIDE A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Government The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Steve Lobb 1995 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Steve Lobb Approved, November 1995 L )\•y ^ . Roger Smith .onald Rapi limes Miclot i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wrong Tomorrow, Wrong Yesterday, but Not Today: on Sliding Into Evil with Zeal but Without Understanding
    Symposium Wrong Tomorrow, Wrong Yesterday, but not Today: On Sliding into Evil with Zeal but without Understanding Robert A. Burt* Collaboration with systems of evil-the overall topic of this Symposium-is a problem as fresh as contemporary news ac­ counts. The New York Times recently carried a front-page story about the dilemmas described by young Serbs who were evading military conscription because they understood the evil ofSlobodan Milosevic's genocidal policies against the Kosovar Albanians but nonetheless felt a patriotic duty to protect their country against foreign assaults. As one young man put it, '''we'd like to see [Milosevic] hanging.' But ... '[i]fthe guys from NATO come here, we will shoot them.'"! As wrenching as this kind of dilemma may be, it is not the problem ofcollaboration that I want to discuss. My concern is with a more difficult problem, as I see it-a problem that is more insidious and difficult to identify as such. The young Ser­ bian resister knows that his President is an evil man, and he feels the moral conflict between his revulsion at this evil and his patri­ otic impulses. My concern is for circumstances where the evil is not understood as such by its perpetrators, where they are una­ ware at the time they are acting of the wrongfulness of the actions in which they are engaged. * Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Law, Yale University School of Law. 1. Steven Erlanger, Serb Conscripts Drift into Hiding: Assert Patriotism While Using Safe Houses to AvoidArmy, N.Y. Times, Apr. 5, 1999, at A1, available in LEXIS, News Library, New York Times File.
    [Show full text]
  • MILGRAM, METHOD and MORALITY By
    1 MILGRAM, METHOD AND MORALITY By Charles R. Pigden and Grant R. Gillet1 1. The Milgram Experiments In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist at Yale, recruited a set of experimental subjects, by advertising in the New Haven papers. They came from all walks of life, though in the first series of experiments all of them were male2. The subjects were promised a modest fee ($4.00 - not a princely sum even in those days) plus a 50c carfare. It is important to remember what a modest fee this was. It was the sort of sum most of Milgram's subjects could have returned without a qualm. (It is not as if they were coerced by economic necessity into carrying on with the experiment to the bitter end.) The experiment was officially about learning and memory. Each recruit was introduced to another man, ostensibly a recruit like himself, but in fact an accomplice of the experimenter. One of them was to be a 'learner', the other a 'teacher', the roles to be determined by lot. In fact the procedure was rigged so that the real recruit always ended up as the 'teacher'. The 'learner' was wired up to a fake electric chair and set to perform a series of mnemonic tasks. He soon began to make 'mistakes'. Every time the 'learner' made a mistake, the 'teacher' was supposed to deliver an 'electric shock'. These were increased in power as the number of errors increased. The teacher experienced a real shock at the outset just so as he would know how the lowest intensity felt - unpleasant but not really painful.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Perception and Social Norms
    Running header: GROUP PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL NORMS GROUP PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL NORMS Sarah Gavac University of Wisconsin-Madison Sohad Murrar University of Wisconsin-Madison Markus Brauer University of Wisconsin-Madison 11 July 2014 Word count: 14,061 Corresponding author: Sarah Gavac, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1202 W. Johnson St., Madison, Wisconsin, 53706. E-mail: [email protected] GROUP PERCEPTION AND SOCIAL NORMS 2 SUMMARY Groups create the very basis of our society. We are, as humans, social animals. We are born into groups, learn in groups, live in groups, and work in groups. Groups can range anywhere from three people to a nation. Think of the groups you belong to. How similar are you to other members of your groups? In most cases, we tend to be similar to other members of our groups because there are standards within the group that define behavioral expectations. These standards are called social norms. Throughout this chapter, we hope to provide basic answers to some of the fundamental questions about social norms and group dynamics: What are social norms? How do social norms influence our behavior? How have social norms been studied? What are the classic experiments on social norms? What is conformity and how does it relate to social norms? When do individuals conform and why do they conform? What makes a group? How do social norms and group dynamics overlap? WHAT ARE SOCIAL NORMS? Imagine you get on an elevator. There’s no one on it, so you stand in the middle and listen to the soft music while the doors close.
    [Show full text]
  • Disagreements and Conflicts Between Scientists and the Crisis of Legitimate Authority: the Case of French New Lockdown in November 2020 Gilles Paché
    Disagreements and Conflicts between Scientists and the Crisis of Legitimate Authority: The Case of French New Lockdown in November 2020 Gilles Paché To cite this version: Gilles Paché. Disagreements and Conflicts between Scientists and the Crisis of Legitimate Author- ity: The Case of French New Lockdown in November 2020. Issues in Social Science, 2020, 8 (2), 10.5296/iss.v8i2. hal-03041603 HAL Id: hal-03041603 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03041603 Submitted on 15 Dec 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Public Domain Issues in Social Science ISSN 2329-521X 2020, Vol. 8, No. 2 Disagreements and Conflicts between Scientists and the Crisis of Legitimate Authority: The Case of French New Lockdown in November 2020 Gilles Paché CRET-LOG, Aix-Marseille University 413 Avenue Gaston Berger, 13625 Aix-en-Provence Cedex, France E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 3, 2020 Accepted: November 25, 2020 Published: November 30, 2020 doi:10.5296/iss.v8i2. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/iss.v8i2. Abstract The Covid-19 pandemic has plunged the world into a deep health, economic and social crisis whose effects are expected to be felt for several years.
    [Show full text]
  • Personality Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm Laurent B`Egue,Jean-L´Eonbeauvois, Didier Courbet, Dominique Oberl´E, Johan Lepage
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by HAL Université de Savoie Personality Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm Laurent B`egue,Jean-L´eonBeauvois, Didier Courbet, Dominique Oberl´e, Johan Lepage To cite this version: Laurent B`egue,Jean-L´eonBeauvois, Didier Courbet, Dominique Oberl´e,Johan Lepage. Per- sonality Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm. Journal of Personality, Wiley, 2015, 83 (3), pp.299-306,. <10.1111/jopy.12104>. <sic 01158395> HAL Id: sic 01158395 https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic 01158395 Submitted on 1 Jun 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destin´eeau d´ep^otet `ala diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publi´esou non, lished or not. The documents may come from ´emanant des ´etablissements d'enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche fran¸caisou ´etrangers,des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou priv´es. JournalJournal of of Personality Personality 83:3, ••:••, •• June 2014 2015 V©C 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Personality Predicts Obedience in a DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12104 Milgram Paradigm Laurent Bègue,1 Jean-Léon Beauvois,2 Didier Courbet,3 Dominique Oberlé,4 Johan Lepage,1 and Aaron A. Duke1,5 1University of Grenoble-Alpes 2University of Nice Sophia Antipolis 3Aix-Marseille University 4University of Paris-West 5Yale University Abstract This study investigates how obedience in a Milgram-like experiment is predicted by interindividual differences.
    [Show full text]
  • NOBA Conformity and Obedience
    NOBA Conformity and Obedience Jerry M. Burger We often change our attitudes and behaviors to match the attitudes and behaviors of the people around us. One reason for this conformity is a concern about what other people think of us. This process was demonstrated in a classic study in which college students deliberately gave wrong answers to a simple visual judgment task rather than go against the group. Another reason we conform to the norm is because other people often have information we do not, and relying on norms can be a reasonable strategy when we are uncertain about how we are supposed to act. Unfortunately, we frequently misperceive how the typical person acts, which can contribute to problems such as the excessive binge drinking often seen in college students. Obeying orders from an authority figure can sometimes lead to disturbing behavior. This danger was illustrated in a famous study in which participants were instructed to administer painful electric shocks to another person in what they believed to be a learning experiment. Despite vehement protests from the person receiving the shocks, most participants continued the procedure when instructed to do so by the experimenter. The findings raise questions about the power of blind obedience in deplorable situations such as atrocities and genocide. They also raise concerns about the ethical treatment of participants in psychology experiments. Learning Objectives • Become aware of how widespread conformity is in our lives and some of the ways each of us changes our attitudes and behavior to match the norm. • Understand the two primary reasons why people often conform to perceived norms.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Groningen Milgram Revisited Smeulers, Alette
    University of Groningen Milgram revisited Smeulers, Alette Published in: Journal of Perpetrator Research DOI: 10.21039/jpr.3.1.45 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2020 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Smeulers, A. (2020). Milgram revisited: Can we still use Milgram’s ‘Obedience to Authority’ Experiments to Explain Mass Atrocities after the Opening of the Archives? Review essay. Journal of Perpetrator Research, 3(1), 216-244. https://doi.org/10.21039/jpr.3.1.45 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne- amendment. Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Perceived Anonymity of Technology Affects Ethical Decisions
    Mask of Technology: How the Perceived Anonymity of Technology Affects Ethical Decisions P103: Professor Brianna Frisch Phillip Rogaway Ethics in an Age of Technology Daniel J. Peirano Department of Computer Science ECS 188, Fall 2011 Word Count: 3562 University of California, Davis November 26, 2011 Introduction Anonymity can act as a mask to hide one’s identity and actions, either outright or by creating a fake identity to hide behind. Masks create the illusion of being completely hidden and safe, which allows people to act in a manner that reflects their true feelings with less regard to repercussions their actions could incur. People act differently when in public versus in the privacy of their own homes. This is a microcosm of the effects of anonymity that occur everyday in people’s lives. Modern communication is far-reaching, instantaneous, and global. With every technological communication advantage gained, the ability and effects of people’s masked, anonymous actions increase equally, in ease of access and area of influence. However, the ability to be anonymous is not a recent development, and in order to place the proper context on anonymity in the choices that are made, the psychological experiments by Stanley Milgram should be observed. Milgram’s Experiment The effects of anonymity are difficult to measure seeing as though if one is truly anonymous, nobody knows who they are or how they would act if their identities were known. Psychologists have often tried to look into anonymity’s effects on people’s actions with various tests and exper- iments. One famous experiment, Milgram’s Experiment, focused on a very different topic in ana- lyzing human action, but it also shed light on how people may act when they perceive anonymity.
    [Show full text]
  • Unplugging the Milgram Machine
    Volume 25 Number 5 October 2015 Contents Special Issue: Unplugging the Milgram Machine Guest edited by: Augustine Brannigan, Ian Nicholson and Frances Cherry Articles Introduction to the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine 551 Augustine Brannigan, Ian Nicholson and Frances Cherry Coverage of recent criticisms of Milgram’s obedience experiments in introductory social psychology textbooks 564 Richard A. Griggs and George I. Whitehead III Milgram’s shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: A contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust 581 Allan Fenigstein Designing obedience in the lab: Milgram’s shock simulator and human factors engineering 599 Maya Oppenheimer Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiments 622 Gina Perry The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in Milgram’s “Obedience” laboratory 639 Ian Nicholson Obedience in perspective: Psychology and the Holocaust 657 George R. Mastroianni Acting otherwise: Resistance, agency, and subjectivities in Milgram’s studies of obedience 670 Ethan Hoffman, N. Reed Myerberg and Jill G. Morawski Essay Review When subjects become objects: The lies behind the Milgram legend 690 Diana Baumrind Review Understanding the unthinkable 697 Augustine Brannigan, Beyond the Banality of Evil: Criminology and Genocide Reviewed by Matthew P. Unger Visit http://tap.sagepub.com Free access to tables of contents and abstracts. Site-wide access to the full text for members of subscribing institutions. TAP0010.1177/0959354315604408Theory & PsychologyBrannigan et al. 604408research-article2015 Article Theory & Psychology 2015, Vol. 25(5) 551 –563 Introduction to the special © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: issue: Unplugging the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0959354315604408 Milgram machine tap.sagepub.com Augustine Brannigan University of Calgary Ian Nicholson St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Milgram Experiment by Saul Mcleod 2008
    Name: Class: The Milgram Experiment By Saul McLeod 2008 In 1963, Stanley Milgram conducted a study on obedience. Using a series of social psychology experiments, Milgram measured participants’ willingness to comply with an authority figure. As you read the text, identify the factors that influenced the behavior of the participants in the study. [1] One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram in 1963. Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense was often based on “obedience” — that they were just following orders from their superiors. The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann1 in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” [5] Milgram wanted to investigate whether Germans "German Third Reich Officers 1022" by thardy1 is in the public were particularly obedient to authority figures, as domain. this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Aim Milgram was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. He wanted to know how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII. 1. Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) was a German Nazi lieutenant colonel and one of the major organizers of the Holocaust.
    [Show full text]
  • The Milgram Experiment September 21, 2017
    September 21, 2017 The Milgram Experiment September 21, 2017 Questions on, "Obedience to Authority" The Experiment by Stanley Milgram 1. Yale University ; in July 1961 2. This experiment was inspired after the Holocaust people justified acts of genocide by saying they were "following orders" 3. Was this experimental design, Blind, Double Blind, or Neither? It was blind because the subjects didn't really know who was getting the treatment. They thought it was the "learners" but actually it was them. 4. What was the explanatory variable? Authority; the experimentor telling the teachers the is was "essential they continue with the experiment" 5. What was the response variable? How far the teachers were willing to go with administering the shocks. 6. What was the treatment? Experimenter telling the "teacher" to go on while the "learner" was apparently feeling pain from the shocks. 7. Who is the authority figure in this experiment? The experimenter who was the important looking man in the white coat. (it was "Stanley Milgram") 8. Who are the actors and who are the actual subjects? The subjects were actually the "teachers" and the "learners" were really just acting. 9. Before the experiments were conducted, Milgrim investigated predictions about the outcome from different classes of people; what did most people predict would happen in this experiment? They predicted that a very small percentage (about 2%) would induce the full shock voltage on the "learners" 10. Is the actual outcome similar to what most people predicted? No! It was disturbing to find that about 65% of the subjects induced the full voltage! 11.
    [Show full text]