How shocking! -evil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osYSIWfdVd4 Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study By Lisa M. Krieger Mercury News Article Launched: 12/20/2008 08:00:00 PM PST Replicating one of the most controversial behavioral experiments in history, a Santa Clara University psychologist has found that people will follow orders from an authority figure to administer what they believe are painful electric shocks. More than two-thirds of volunteers in the research study had to be stopped from administering 150 volt shocks of electricity, despite hearing a person's cries of pain, professor Jerry M. Burger concluded in a study published in the January issue of the journal American Psychologist. "In a dramatic way, it illustrates that under certain circumstances people will act in very surprising and disturbing ways,'' said Burger. The study, using paid volunteers from the South Bay, is similar to the famous 1974 "obedience study'' by the late Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. In the wake of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann's trial, Milgram was troubled by the willingness of people to obey authorities — even if it conflicted with their own conscience. Burger's findings are published in a special section of the journal reflecting on Milgram's work 24 years after his death on Dec. 20, 1984. The haunting images of average people administering shocks have kept memories of Milgram's research alive for decades, even as recently as the Abu Ghraib scandal. The subjects — recruited in ads in the Mercury News, Craigslist and fliers distributed in libraries and communities centers in Santa Clara, Cupertino and Sunnyvale — thought they were testing the effect of punishment on learning. "They were average citizens, a typical cross-section of people that you'd see around every day,'' said Burger. In the study, conducted two years ago, volunteers administered what they believed were increasingly powerful electric shocks to another person in a separate room. An "authority figure'' prodded the volunteer to shock another person, who was playing the role of "learner." Each time the learner gave an incorrect answer, the volunteer was urged to press a switch, seemingly increasing the electricity over time. They were told that the shocks were painful but not dangerous. Burger designed his study to avoid several of the most controversial elements of Milgram's experiment. For instance, the "shocks'' were lower voltage. And participants were told at least three times that they could withdraw from the study at any time and still receive the $50 payment. In addition, a clinical psychologist interviewed volunteers to eliminate anyone who might be upset by the study procedure. Like Milgram's study, Burger's shock generator machine was a fake. The cries of pain weren't real, either. Both the authority figure and the learner were actors — faculty members Brian Oliveira and Kenneth Courtney. (When Courtney failed to scream convincingly, a professional actor had to be hired; his voice was recorded.) Burger found that 70 percent of the participants had to be stopped from escalating shocks over 150 volts, despite hearing cries of protest and pain. Decades earlier, Milgram found that 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks. Of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts. Burger's experiment did not go that far. "The conclusion is not: 'Gosh isn't this a horrible commentary on human nature,' or 'these people were so sadistic,'' said Burger. "It shows the opposite — that there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize,'' he said. The experiment shows that people are more likely to comply with instructions if the task starts small, then escalates, according to Burger. "For instance, the suicides at Jonestown were just the last step of many,'' he said. "Jim Jones started small, asking people to donate time and money, then looked for more and more commitment.'' Additionally, the volunteers confronted a novel situation — having never before been in such a setting, they had no idea of how they were supposed to act, he said. Finally, they had been told that they should not feel responsible for inflicting pain; rather, the "instructor" was accountable. "Lack of feeling responsible can lead people to act in ways that they might otherwise not,'' said Burger. "When we see people acting out of character, the first thing we should ask is: 'What's going on in this situation?'''
this was done a long time ago...at a different university.... i watched the film... most people felt uncomfortable administering the shocks even when there was an authority figure urging them to.
This is not surprising. People haven't changed simply because the social cues that we accept (regarding authority) haven't been significantly or radically altered since the 1970's. Our technology may be progressive, but our social structure remains much the same. Hence, social experiments like this would result in similar findings. In a way this is good and continued validation of Milgram's, et al, Obedience study. Other similar historic social experiments of note include Elliot's Brown eye versus Blue eye study and Asch's Social Conformity study. It would be of note had society really taken to heart Leary's notion of being able to ...think for one's self and question authority. However, the Burger results today indicate that while we may have listened, we didn't really hear that message.
I saw that research film during last sem...and man was that funny, one dude almost got to the end and realise that he should stop cos the dude stopped screaming LOL
