Read on Twitter
Somehow ended up explaining the #Milgram Experiment on Obedience to the kids, which they found intriguing (
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">1/9)
I& #39;m amazed it was replicated in 2008 (now with ethics)! Very clear read, also covers well the original experiment: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf
https://www.apa.org/pubs/jour... href=" https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932">https://doi.org/10.1037/a...
I& #39;m amazed it was replicated in 2008 (now with ethics)! Very clear read, also covers well the original experiment: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-64-1-1.pdf
Refresher Milgram 1962: participants tricked to believe they are giving increasingly painful electrical shocks to another (fake) participant if he answer wrongly. Authority figure tells them to continue; even when they hear complaints and screams through the wall, 83% continue!
In case you want to see Milgram Experiment 5, complete with the scary (but totally fake) shock machine going up to 450 volts, and participants getting increasingly concerned, here is Milgrams full 44 min documentary (1962): https://youtu.be/rdrKCilEhC0 ">https://youtu.be/rdrKCilEh...
The Jerry M Burger& #39;s 2008 replication solved the ethical dilemma by always stopping at 150 volts (where actor being "shocked" first pleads to stop), using clinical psychologist to pre-screen and watch out for stress, and 3 times informing participant can withdraw at any point.
Argument is that in 1962, 79% of those going beyond 150V went all the way, so this boundary is the critical point to check for particlients& #39; ethical disobedience. And replicated in 2008, 70% continue as Dr Lab Coat tells them, even if the man behind the wall is pleading to stop!
Stopping at this point avoids the screams that followed 150V, or worse, the eery silence that Milgram had after 330V (suggesting unconsciousness or death). 65% of participants still continued to administer shocks!
Famously the Milgram experiments were later deemed unethical by placing participants under short-term stress and potential long-term harm. However this may now seem like an overreaction; Milgram extensively debriefed participants. http://www.angelfire.com/id2/intropsychology/ObedienceinRetrospect.html">https://www.angelfire.com/id2/intro... https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01332.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j...
Burger& #39;s 2008 set-up avoids this dilemma to an extent, as the experiment always ends when actor first complains. However participants were still tricked into thinking they were helping a memory study rather than being subjects themselves.
I realise at end of this thread on classical obedience studies we are right in the middle of this: One authority figure says we must continue to stay at home, while another figure is suggesting we could inject bleach... (https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="🧵" title="Thread" aria-label="Emoji: Thread">9/9)
