The Milgram Experiment : Round II

[ArneHD]

Why is it unethical?

First of all, no psychological experiment should be carried out by a news organization. Second, the original experiment did not have sufficient debreifing. Third the experiment involves deciving a person that they had hurt a person. Deception is in itself enough to make an experiment unethical.

Besides, this experiment was carried out by a news organization, if I have understood correctly. This is absolutely inexcusable to conduct such experiment if your only goal is to create a news story, and such experimentation is banned by international treaties.

 

[brennan]

International treaties?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

It traumatises the subjects; 70% of them walk out realising that they were more like the Nazis than they realised.

And this is unethical? Rather, it's a wake up call.


ArneHD, what does deception and news organization have to do with it?


Other than that, if this experiment reveals human nature, that human beings are so ready to accept the voice of authority, this places a very big question mark on the validity of political systems (and democracy itself).

 

[ArneHD]

International treaties?

The Nuremberg code.

Also, if they are replicating the Milgram experiment they are urging the participant to continue the experiment. This causes stress. Lots of it. And, yes, I know what the Milgram experiment is about, I know it's content, it was one of the studies we learned about in psychology.

 

[.Shane.]

The experiment has been done quite a few times; the main factors tends to be the authority level of the instructor and the presence of the instructor. If the professor was commanding the jolts, people were more likely to continue than if a grad student was commanding the jolts. As well, if the professor was connected by phone, the people 'got brave' faster than if he was present.

Check the SPE link I posted. In that case the "guards" where essentially unsupervised and given vague instructions.

Man will be cruel to man when he can because he wants to. These "subjects" are simply looking for a justification or excuse to for their behavior. Remember that discussion we had a while back where the McDonald's manager and her boyfriend brutalized that girl just because someone on the phone told them to?

I submit that people who follow this type of behavior are not human. They're animals, but not human.

 

[warpus]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id=4890579



The startling results of the original experiment were shown yet again. Scary and disheartening. Showing yet again that it is not safe to put your life in the hands of others.

Suprisingly, women were more likely to do the job than men.

What do you make of this?

This tells me that people are sheep and do not want to think for themselves.

Fortunately some of us do.

 

[.Shane.]

This tells me that people are sheep and do not want to think for themselves.

Well, some are sheep and some are looking for an excuse.

Fortunately some of us do.

Not enough of us, not nearly enough of us.

 

[punkbass2000]

There is absoloutley nothing wrong with the expieremnt at all, either the new one or the orignal. People who say it is unethical clearly have no idea what the expirement is.

Wrong. People who say it is ethical have no concept of the Canadian and American process of having an experiment approved. Even extremely minor deception requires major payoffs to offset it.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

It traumatises the subjects; 70% of them walk out realising that they were more like the Nazis than they realised...

Well, if they're more of a Nazi than they thought they were, maybe it's more of a service to let them know that. Keeps them more alert about their own actions.

Edit: Whoops, didn't realize that a second page had started up and someone had more or less said this...

 

[Psyringe]

The Milgram experiment isn't more unethical as many other psychological experiments. Deception is a necessary part of almost any experiment that tries to test the difference between social standards and real behaviour.

It's true that the original experiment didn't have a sufficient debriefing, but this has been fixed in subsequent experiments. Also, it's true that such experiments shouldn't be carried out be news stations.

That the results haven't changes is as expected as disheartening.

However, in my personal opinion the most important aspect of the original line of experiments is that the rate of people who refused to go further raised substantially when they had a role model for such behaviour. I.e., the experiment was carried out as usual, but before the "real" experiment started, the test subjects were made to observe a (faked) scene of another test sibject refusing to carry on with the test. Under this condition, many more people refused to go to the end.

For me, this result is so valuable because it shows the immense value of showing protest against inacceptable behaviour. It takes only *one* person courageous enough to voice his protest, to make the same easier for many more.

 

[.Shane.]

However, in my personal opinion the most important aspect of the original line of experiments is that the rate of people who refused to go further raised substantially when they had a role model for such behaviour. I.e., the experiment was carried out as usual, but before the "real" experiment started, the test subjects were made to observe a (faked) scene of another test sibject refusing to carry on with the test. Under this condition, many more people refused to go to the end.

That isn't surprising, though I'd never heard of this twist. It just shows natural instinct toward cowardice (probably a derivative of self-preservation) and conformity.

 

[Psyringe]

That isn't surprising, though I'd never heard of this twist. It just shows natural instinct toward cowardice (probably a derivative of self-preservation) and conformity.

How so? Imho, the cowardly way is to just obey the authority, instead of refusing to do so.

 

[.Shane.]

How so? Imho, the cowardly way is to just obey the authority, instead of refusing to do so.

They are cowardly for not stopping in the first place. Their cowardice is then further evidenced when they'll only stop when someone else puts their neck on the line. Run another test. In this test the plant who says "no" suffers some penalty. The harsher the penalty the more likely everyone else will be to do nothing. Including stand up for the dissenter. Humanity is a real piece of work.

 

[Psyringe]

They are cowardly for not stopping in the first place. Their cowardice is then further evidenced when they'll only stop when someone else puts their neck on the line. Run another test. In this test the plant who says "no" suffers some penalty. The harsher the penalty the more likely everyone else will be to do nothing. Including stand up for the dissenter. Humanity is a real piece of work.

Actually, I doubt your proposed results. One of the key aspects why the Milgram experiment worked so well was that the experiment began comparably innocent, and then only gradually got worse. Also, the "professor", who gave the orders, remained calm. Any disobedience of a confederate, followed by a harsh punishment, would remove the aura of calm, professional authority of the professor, and provide an excellent "breaking point" for anyone to step out.

I think your setup would work when the subjects had to fear punishment for quitting as well, but not when you can quit safely.

 

[punkbass2000]

The Milgram experiment isn't more unethical as many other psychological experiments.

Any modern examples?

 

[Solver]

Hard to say without having been tested, but I honestly think that I would have an atypical response in the Milgram experiment - that is, refuse to push the buttons and tell the person to shove it when he insists that you do. I am quite anti-authority, and don't accept orders from others just because they're orders - I need a good reason. In the experiment, there's no reason provided, in fact, there's a reason to NOT push the button (what you hear from the person behind the wall).

 

[Psyringe]

Any modern examples?

I recall an experiment which tested people's inclination to help a person in need based on whether the person looked "western" or "foreign". The need wasn't real of course, so there was deception, the situation put the test subjects under stress, and of course they didn't like it if they found out that they didn't help a person when their moral standards would have actually commanded them to do so.

Another experiment that was conducted at my own university a couple of years ago dealt with effects of frustration; naturally people had to be frustrated first, which was done by giving them unsolvable puzzles.

There were also experiments concerned with violence in computer games which involved serious deception - you can't tell people that you're going to observe how video game violence influences their behaviour because once you do, this knowledge influences the behavior of the test subjects, leading to worthless results. But I don't remember the details very well.

 

[El_Machinae]

Deception is a necessary part of almost any experiment that tries to test the difference between social standards and real behaviour.

I remember one professor lamenting at the need for deception; mainly because his experiments didn't include any. His subjects, canny students mainly, would constantly maintain their guard. They'd be taut and alert, waiting for the 'catch' in his experiments.

"No, seriously, I just want you to click the button when a word I use is similar to the word 'Banana'"



Seriously, though, you're right. This IS a wakeup call

 

[punkbass2000]

I recall an experiment which tested people's inclination to help a person in need based on whether the person looked "western" or "foreign". The need wasn't real of course, so there was deception, the situation put the test subjects under stress, and of course they didn't like it if they found out that they didn't help a person when their moral standards would have actually commanded them to do so.

Another experiment that was conducted at my own university a couple of years ago dealt with effects of frustration; naturally people had to be frustrated first, which was done by giving them unsolvable puzzles.

There were also experiments concerned with violence in computer games which involved serious deception - you can't tell people that you're going to observe how video game violence influences their behaviour because once you do, this knowledge influences the behavior of the test subjects, leading to worthless results. But I don't remember the details very well.

None of these compares to being highly pressured into torturing other people. Have you seen the obvious distress many of the people in the original experiment felt?

 

[Psyringe]

None of these compares to being highly pressured into torturing other people. Have you seen the obvious distress many of the people in the original experiment felt?

I think I've seen a some of the footage during a lecture about social psychology, but that was so long ago that I hardly remember anything about it.

Thinking it through, I think you're right. I based my opinion on the aspects of deception (which is often necessary), debriefing (which can be provided in a Milgram setting, even if it wasn't in his original experiments), and personal stress (which can occur in modern experiments too). I neglected the duration and intensity of the stress in the Milgram setting, which, together with the fact that the test subjects were deceived and hadn't given their consent to be tested that way, indeed makes it more unethical than any modern social psychology experiments I know about. Thanks for setting it right.