Chapter 8 Activity

.docx

School

Eastern Washington University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by JudgeAlpaca3875

Report
PSYC 201, LifeSpan Development Name: Kendall Clinton Nick Jackson Class Assignment: Moral Development (This assignment is worth 10 points) Another example of Lawrence Kolhberg’s original moral dilemma about “Heinz and the Pharmacist” was a reenactment of Dr. Stanley Milgram’s 1960 experiment on authority and punishment. This experiment was conducted by Dr. David Rosenhan in the early 1970’s Your task is to track both the behaviors and the reasoning of each of the college participants in this video on Dr David Rosenhan’s experiment Answer the following questions for each level of moral reasoning 1. Did the participant follow the instructions of the researcher 2. What reasons did the participant offer of following (or not following) the instructions? 3. How did this reasoning demonstrate this level of moral reasoning Level 1 (punishment/obedience stage) He followed it regardless of the consequences of him getting shocked because the person asked him to do it. He followed it all the way to the highest voltage of 450 mv. He said he was shocked because the guy wasn’t learning which he felt was the purpose of the experiment Level 2 (naive hedonism stage) He followed it but he was more willing, he did it because it was his job and he did as he was asked but it was more important for him to follow it so he doesn’t get shocked. When the researchers told him to continue he was very unwilling but continued until it reached 450 mv. He claimed that he didn't have to shock him, he says he was a part of the experiment and was paid to administer a shock to the guy when he made a mistake Level 3 (good boy/girl stage) Following it very well, he was trying to please the instructor and be a good guy for the experiment so he didn't ruin the study. He didn’t like the pain and was concerned about disappointing the researchers Level 4 (social order stage) Followed it well and stated that he had respect for the social order and doing his duty to the study. Overall he just wanted to get his job done but he seemed uncomfortable with the situation but not to the point where he refused to continue. He said he was told what to do and did it. His moral reasoning is consistent and maintain the social order and having respect for doing it
Level 5 (social contract stage) Didn’t follow it and he stopped in the middle and he was unwilling to continue due to his stress. He stopped at 300 mV, he said that it was too much. He figured this was something that was too good for mankind and society and wants to know if that person is truly okay Level 6 (universal ethical stage) Didn’t follow it because he didn't care if he ruined the experiment or if he didn’t get paid. He has low respect for humans and life. He ended up giving back the money after being pressured to continue. He says he's sorry but doesn’t feel that the experiment will accomplish anything but administering a shock just because a person answers the question wrong. His reasoning is based on social standards
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help