Procedures The participant met another "participant" in the waiting room before the experiment. Each participant got the role as a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the actor ("learner") every time an incorrect answer to a question was produced.The participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the learner. As the experiment progressed, the teacher would hear the learner plead to be released and complain about a heart condition.The shock generator had switches labeled with different voltages, starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts.
It provides evidence that this dynamic is far more important than previously believed, and that personal ethics are less predictive of such behavior. Discussion and Conclusion What are our thought about the results compared to other relevant theories.
Page 1: Title, Author, Work/School Page 2: Abstract: A short summary of the article. References Through the text there are references, sources of knowledge, which you've used.
The conclusion is that, contrary to common belief, personal ethics mean little when pitted against authority.
Current theories focus on personal characteristics to explain wrong-doing and how someone can intentionally harm others.
Many continued to follow orders throughout even though they were clearly uncomfortable.
The study shows that people are able to harm others intentionally if ordered to do so.
There are few facts about the role of obedience when committing acts against one’s personal conscience (1961).
Most theories suggest that only very disturbed people are capable of administering pain to an ordinary citizen if they are ordered to do so.
The expectation is that very few will keep giving shocks, and that most participants will disobey the order. They were recruited by advertisement in a newspaper and were paid .50.
Instruments A "shock generator" was used to trick the participants into thinking that they were giving an electric shock to another person in another room.