IB Psych 10/02/17 Today’s Agenda: Other Ethics Quiz HW: Turn in: Nothing Take out : Planner Writing Implement Today’s Learning Objectives: I can be brilliant! Today’s Agenda: Other Ethics Quiz HW: Print BLOA Learning Outcomes Chart CRA 2.1-2.3

The Risk-Benefit Rule: So then… Dilemma: If we could predict criminality, should we punish the few to protect the many? How might this transfer to the study of psychology? Where do we draw these lines???

The Risk-Benefit Rule: So then… Dilemma: If we could predict criminality, should we punish the few to protect the many? How might this transfer to the study of psychology? Where do we draw these lines???

Goddard & Eugenics: “Improving human genetic qualities” Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Buck v Bell (1927): Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Milgram (1963)

Experimental Question Under what conditions will people carry out the commands of an authority figure and when will they refuse to obey? Milgram was 27 years old when he carried out these studies

Milgram Study Setup Subjects were told that they were participating in a study on the effect of punishment on memory One “participant” in the study - the “learner” (“Mr. Wallace” - real name Bob McDonough) was a confederate of Milgram and one was the true subject - the “teacher” The teacher was given a list of “paired associates” The “teacher” was told to shock the learner when the learner gave an incorrect response The “learner” and the “experimenter” were given 9 months of role playing to prepare

Milgram Study Setup The “learner” is hooked up to what appears to be a shock generating machine with 30 switches labeled from “Slight Shock” to “Danger: Severe Shock” The “teachers” were given a shock of 45 volts to convince them that the shocks were real The “learner’s” response to the questions is scripted (and played back on a tape recorder) At 150 volts the “learner” is heard asking that the experiment stop

Milgram Study Setup Experimenter prompts: if the “teacher” objected to continuing the experiment, the experimenter’s script included the following prompts: Please continue (or “Please go on”) The experiment requires that you continue It is absolutely essential that you continue You have no other choice, you must go on

Little Albert (1920) Classical Conditioning: People (and animals) acquire certain behaviors through classical conditioning Learning process in which associations are made between an unconditioned stimulus and a neutral stimulus. Example: https://vimeo.com/35754924

Harlow (1958)

Harlow (1958) Ethical issues?: Control group raised in isolation for 3/6/9/12 months Odd behaviors: rocking, and clutching Reintroduced to other monkey group Fear, aggression, unable to associate Other monkeys acted in ways that we might call “bullying” Isolated monkeys showed signs of self-mutilation: pulling out hair, biting and/or scratching themselves. Video: https://youtu.be/OrNBEhzjg8I

Stanford Prison Study In 1971 Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned Stanford University students to be either ‘prisoners’ or ‘guards’ for a 2 week experiment. How will people behave when left to their own devices? Hobbes vs. Locke? The experiment had to be discontinued after 6 days, because of extreme ‘prisoner’ abuse.

Bags were placed over students heads, they were stripped, chained together, sexually humiliated, tripped by guards, forced to clean toilets with their hands.

* EXPERIMENT # VARIATION RESULTS 1 thru 4 Proximity #1 Study (Remote) = 65% #2: Voice Feedback = 62.5 #3: Proximity(same room) = 40% #4: Touch Proximity = 30% 5 Heart Problem 65% Obedience 7 Closeness of authority (orders given over the phone) 22% Obedience* 8 Females as subjects 65% Obedience (less predicted) 10 Downtown site ("Research Associates of Bridgeport”) 48% Obedience* 13 Ordinary person issues commands (experimenter had to leave) 20% Obedience (4/20 ) 13a Accomplice assumes role of shocker; subject as "bystander" 69% allowed obedience 17 2 peers (one administrator, one recordkeeper); Subject as shocker One peer rebels (at 150 level) 10% Obedience “When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority.” --- (Milgram, 1974) 18 2 peers - both peers keep obeying 93% Obedience

* Generalization Issue "Hospital" Study ---Hofling (1966) Physician ordered a medicine to be administered to a patient in a ward Specific conditions: Done over the phone (against hospital policy) and by an unfamiliar voice b) Medication not on ward stock list and not cleared for use c) Dosage was an obviously excessive one 21/22 Nurses agreed to administer the drug >>> Written description given to 12 nurses (control condition). They were asked how they would act 21/22 nurses said they would not administer the drug

Sherif, et al. (1961) The Robber’s Cave Experiment In/Out Group Competition over finite resources

One group was not aware of the other group Two groups of 12 year old boys at a camp…unknown to each other prior to arrival. One group was not aware of the other group Each group was asked to bond…but still unaware of the other group Group name, hierarchy, etc.

Competition is introduced for prizes/rewards… Medals, pocket knives, etc… Practice, improvement, “Keep off” signs Name-calling, planned delays at a picnic of one group while the other ate all the food, destruction of cabins, etc…

Criticism(s): Informed Consent Deception Artificial grouping? Middle-class, white, male, Mid-West… Created conflict…