Case Study 1.2
1) Critics of Milgrims research have argued that the physical separation between the participants and the teacher in one room and the learner in the other made it easier for the participant to inflict the shocks. Do you think that made a difference? Why or why not?
I would agree that the physical separation between the teacher, participant and the learner made it easier for the participant to inflict “shocks” on the learner. By removing the learner from the room and placing both the participant and the teacher in another room, the participant surely felt a sense of legitimacy. The teacher’s professional demeanor also played a key role in the experiment. If the teacher would have displayed signs of concern or remorse the participant would have felt uncomfortable and doubted his actions and questioned the situation. 2) The treatment of the participants in the study raised as much criticism as the results the study generated. Was it ethical to mislead them into believing that they were really inflicting pain on the learners? Why?
The experiment was ethical because although the participants were misled into believing they were inflicting actual pain on the learners, they were not forced to continue or partake at all. It is their own involvement in the experiment that raises the question of ethics. 3) The participants were introduced to the learners as equal participants in the study-that is, volunteers just like them. Do you think that made a difference in the decision to keep increasing the voltage? Why?
I think that telling the participants that the learners were also volunteers definitely influenced their decision to increase the voltage. Believing that they were both volunteers of their own free will eased the responsibility they must of felt when they were told the details of the experiment. In their minds they were both volunteers fulfilling the duties of their roles. If the participants were asked to conducts these experiments on unknowing
I would agree that the physical separation between the teacher, participant and the learner made it easier for the participant to inflict “shocks” on the learner. By removing the learner from the room and placing both the participant and the teacher in another room, the participant surely felt a sense of legitimacy. The teacher’s professional demeanor also played a key role in the experiment. If the teacher would have displayed signs of concern or remorse the participant would have felt uncomfortable and doubted his actions and questioned the situation. 2) The treatment of the participants in the study raised as much criticism as the results the study generated. Was it ethical to mislead them into believing that they were really inflicting pain on the learners? Why?
The experiment was ethical because although the participants were misled into believing they were inflicting actual pain on the learners, they were not forced to continue or partake at all. It is their own involvement in the experiment that raises the question of ethics. 3) The participants were introduced to the learners as equal participants in the study-that is, volunteers just like them. Do you think that made a difference in the decision to keep increasing the voltage? Why?
I think that telling the participants that the learners were also volunteers definitely influenced their decision to increase the voltage. Believing that they were both volunteers of their own free will eased the responsibility they must of felt when they were told the details of the experiment. In their minds they were both volunteers fulfilling the duties of their roles. If the participants were asked to conducts these experiments on unknowing