In response to the suggestion (by Chris Green, if I understand Stephen aright) that the results of a Milgram-like study may be vitiated by the subjects realizing they were enrolled in a similar experiment to the well-publicised Milgram study, Joan Warmberg wrote:
>Interesting suppositions Stephen--any data to back them up? I think the (valid) point Chris was making is that at this stage in our knowledge of the study, such a possibility should not be ruled out, and that we should not *necessarily* take the results at face value. I also don’t think the word “suppositions” is appropriate. As I read Chris he is arguing that the results may not be as straightforward as seems, and that his suggestion is a reasonable possibility, if not probability. He is not *presupposing* that it was the case. He is simply doing something that is (unfortunately) frequently not done in such circumstances, pointing out that we should consider another plausible explanation before jumping to conclusions. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joan Warmbold <jwarm...@oakton.edu> Subject: Re: Shocking study (for cash) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:10:51 -0500 (CDT) Interesting suppositions Stephen--any data to back them up? Joan jwarm...@oakton.edu > Chris Green, who no longer appears to be with us (was it something we > said?), has flagged (elsewhere) an interesting study, here: > > http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/shocking-experiment-money/ > > The point seems to be that you don't need a Milgram-type Nazi to get > you to give shocks to someone else, only a little money. > > Hmm. I beg to disagree. I think the experimenters fail to give their > subjects enough credit. They may even be smarter than the > experimenters. > > I think they may have figured out that the study is a set-up, and no > one is really going to get shocked. After all, who hasn't heard > about Milgram these days or about devious experimenters. So they > happily go along with the role-play and pretend to shock the > "victim". The experimenters hand over the cash and no one gets hurt. > > Pretty good deal: the subjects get paid, and the experimenters get a > paper. No one feels guilty. I bet the subjects even have the decency > to pretend not to know it's all a fake when asked about it. > > (This also explains why seeing the face as well as the hand reaction > reduces the amount earned. With the face, they may be a little less > confident in their conclusion it's all a fake--but not by much.) > > Stephen > -------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University > Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada > e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca > --------------------------------------------- > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: jwarm...@oakton.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752d0d&n=T&l=tips&o=9875 > or send a blank email to > leave-9875-49240.d374d0c18780e492c3d2e63f91752...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=9902 or send a blank email to leave-9902-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
