Bucknell's Fairness Experiment

The Milgram Experiment conducted at Yale University in 1963, focused on whether a person would follow instructions from someone showing authority. Students (actors) were asked questions by the teachers (participants), if the students got the answer wrong they would receive a shock each higher than the previous. The shocks ranged from Slight shock (15v) to Danger! (300v) to XXX (450v). Stanley Milgram wanted to know if people would do things just because someone with authority told them to, even if it was hurting someone. I believe that the experiment was a good way to test the obedience of people

On the other hand, it is possible to say that the children were manipulated into responding aggressively towards the BoBo Doll as they were teased and may have become frustrated because they could not touch the toys even though they had to watch the role models playing however it is not actually stated how long the children remained aggressive for. The experiment can be said to be unethical and morally wrong because the children were trained to be aggressive, as they were probably not used to watching adults behave some immaturely. Also as the experiment was preformed in a laboratory it therefore lacks eco-logical validity, as it may not have real life consequences. Another study that supports the Social Learning Theories of aggression is Patterson et al (1989).

This experiment in my opinion was useful to psychology. But I don’t agree with the methods that were applied. The researchers taught some behaviours to the monkeys that unless humans never show them how to do they will never do it by themselves, like

(1963) bobo doll studies has been discussed to demonstrate that experiments that lack ecological validity still have influential results. Nevertheless, even though the experiment was controlled, and results were valid it is absent of telling whether the children would go on to demonstrate the behaviour in the real world. Subsequently, Skinners (1979) experiments were deliberated to show that ecological validity was deficient, however, the outcome of observing animals learning behaviour in their natural habitat would not have been controlled enough to discover if animals can learn behaviour. Finally, Loftus and Palmer (1974) experiments were considered to show that ecological validity can still be maintained under control conditions but this can affect how participants answer the question. Nevertheless, this is so that ethical issues are not

I agree that the Harry Harlow study is entirely relevant to life today, useful, and in no way cruel to the monkeys involved. It demonstrates the importance of contact comfort

Many people detest animal testing, but in some cases, it can be useful. In the short story “Flowers for Algernon” by Daniel Keyes, scientists take animal testing to another level by performing tests on a human. The story is about a mentally challenged man named Charlie who scientists perform an experiment on. He receives a surgery, which makes him very intuitive for a short time, and experiences a decline in intelligence, until he is once again mentally challenged. Some readers might argue that Charlie is worse off after the experiment because he lost all of his friends when he was smart, but Charlie is better off after the experiment because he gains self-awareness, feels satisfied for receiving a second chance at being intelligent, and regains all of

Dogs wore given a piece of steak after a person would ring a bell. Eventually the person would ring the bell and it would cause the dogs to salivate. I feel like the experiment comes to my mind because of the bell, but they truly are alike. Instead of a reward they wore given a choice to fight for life.

The Federal Communications Commission stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, less than 40 years after the policy was created. The doctrine required broadcast stations to discuss important controversial issues and that they provide time for both sides of the argument. This included allowing someone who had been attacked on air the right to respond back. The FCC also reserved the right to take away a station’s license if they did not follow the set guidelines. During the 38 years that the policy was active, many stations had to use more time to talk about issues that did not necessarily align with their station.

1. The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment that was created to test the effect between prisoners and prison officers. The experiment took place in the basement of one of the buildings in Stanford University. The prisoners and guards in the experiment were college students. The college students were told that they would get $15 dollars a day and that the experiment would last two weeks. The guards and prisoners were decided by a flip of a coin. The experiment abruptly ended after six days because of the mental break downs and hunger strikes the inmates were having. The BoBo Doll Experiment was an experiment that studied aggression. The way that the experiment worked was that they had adults attack the BoBo doll and they made the children watch to see if they would mimic the adults actions. When presented with the BoBo doll the children acted the same way as they saw the adults act. They were able to learn the aggression and hostile language from the adults.

Even if racism is overt or not, one can still end up with racially disparate outcomes. Alexander states the assumption that there are sociological explanations that provide information about the different outcomes. A particular sociological research study in Seattle concluded that one explanation normally given for uneven arrests is that blacks sell drugs with less discretion than whites. When researchers went to Seattle, they learned that there were five open air drug markets in which four were all white and only one was mostly black in the central district. The citizens had concentrated complaints on drug activity going on in the private residences that were being distributed throughout the city but despite this, enforcement activities were

Last summer, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of race in the college admissions process in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Since then, affirmative action has become a big issue in the media; however, many people still do not even know what affirmative action is. Affirmative action is a policy to prevent discrimination on the basis of “color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Overall, it favors minorities that are often discriminated. It might sound like an excellent policy; however, the use of this policy in the college admissions process is prejudice. In the college admissions process, affirmative action lowers the standards for some races, while raising the standard for other races. For example, an Asian might need a

In this experiment, subjects are explained that this is “a ‘learning experiment’ to ... study the effects of punishment on memory” (4). Yet, the real intention here is to measure the participants’ compliance towards the experimenter. This controversy is unethical as subjects are volunteering for a cause that does not exist. They are misled since they are not exposed to the real purpose of this study.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy established by the Federal Communications Commission, that states those with broadcast license such as radio stations and television programs must present controversial public issues in way that is honest, balanced, and fair within the time of their program. The policy was passed by Congress in 1949, its main concern was that diverse views and controversial issues that regard the public be available for society to be aware of. This also entitled political programs to present opposing sides of an issue. Broadcasters had obligation to show the public the spectrum of an argument. Furthermore the doctrine also includes that the broadcasters must allow anyone being

I believe that discrimination is something that is still very much prevalent on college campuses. I feel that it isn’t something that I have experienced in my college career, but I feel as if part of that is due to the size of college that I go to. I was never very aware of the various forms of discrimination that took place on the college campuses until I was reading chapter 5 and the attached article. It is sad to see that people put others down in order to make themselves feel better and many times they are aware of the how it will affect others too. In this chapter it found it interesting that many students were members of the Terrible Tribe and then they invited Gil into the group too. It was sad to see that Gil decided to join the Terrible

Me personally I always get caught in the middle of bullshit that gets you in trouble.