Extrinsic Rewards

However, in the Burger experiment, the maximum shock level available for use was 150 vaults, unlike the 450 volts available for use in the Milgram obedience experiment. Also, all of the participants in the Burger study were carefully screened, with hopes of weaning out persons who were familiar with Mailgram’s research or likely to experience adverse effects after participating in Burger’s study. After the screening process, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Participants in the base condition were escorted to the lab and introduced to the experimenter and confederate. Similar to the Milgram study, the experimenter and confederate followed a script. When the participant seemed uneasy and began to resist, the experimenter insisted on the participant’s cooperation. The script for the confederate included shrieks of pain and verbal phrases of distress. The experiment ended when the participant either refused to go on with the experiment or after the participant administered the 150-volt shock (Burger, 2009). The results showed that more than half of the participants in the base condition attempted to go on with the experiment after the 150-volt shock, thus supporting the

The Milgram experiment was conducted in 1963 by Stanley Milgram in order to focus on the conflict between obedience to authority and to personal conscience. The experiment consisted of 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, and who’s jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. The roles of this experiment included a learner, teacher, and researcher. The participant was deemed the teacher and was in the same room as the researcher. The learner, who was also a paid actor, was put into the next room and strapped into an electric chair. The teacher administered a test to the learner, and for each question that was incorrect, the learner was to receive an electric shock by the teacher, increasing the level of shock each time. The shock generator ranged from

In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.

If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures. He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority

Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation: The Myth Continues. The Behavior Analysist , 1-44.

These results were very revealing about people's obedience to authority. As the subjects in the experiment went on delivering the shocks, they showed signs of deep moral conviction,

Compared to the Milgram Experiment, one could easily argue that the prisoners suffered from far more anxiety and trauma that the “teachers” who instituted electrical shocks. However, as one might hate as much to admit, but the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment outweigh the risks. Not only did it bring to light many natural tendencies and moral issues of human beings, but also that it was this experiment, along with the Milgram Experiment, the revolutionized the ethical guidelines of human experimentation. While these two experiments may be considered among the darkest experiments in the history of psychology, it is important to acknowledge what they have also brought to

Stanley Milgram writes about his shocking experiment in “Perils of Obedience.” Milgram writes on the behaviors that the people had during the experiment. Milgram had an experiment that involves two people. One person was a student and the other a teacher. The student was strapped into an electric chair and was required to answer certain questions. The teacher asked a certain word, and the student must know the pair that goes with it. If the student answered the question incorrectly, the teacher must shock the student. Each time the student answered a question incorrectly, the volts increase. Milgram was expecting the teachers to back out of the experiment once they saw the student in pain for the first time, but surprisingly enough, more than sixty percent of the teachers obeyed the experimenter and continued on with the experiment, reaching up to four-hundred-fifty volts. After three times of the four-hundred-fifty volt shock, the experiment was called to halt.

Specific Praise. Specific praise includes verbal or written statements to a student that recognize a desired or correct behavior. Praise can function as a tool for instruction and for increasing social and academic behaviors. To be effective, the student must view the attention provided through praise as pleasurable or motivational (Curran, 2017). Specific praise promoted more on‐task behavior than positive praise and significantly increased academic self‐concept (Bizo, 2004). Offering specific praise will help Sam because it sends a message that the teacher is aware of the effort he is putting into staying on task. As time goes on, Sam will desire the teacher’s positive statements. He understands that the statements are the result of him remaining on task and reaching his six-week goal. Sam will also develop an understanding of how to meet the teacher’s expectation. In the end, Sam will mature and advance in his academics. As he matures, the need for constant specific praise will become unnecessary. The added benefit of specific praise is to the teacher. The high levels of stress and emotional exhaustion while attempting to teach in the classroom with Sam will diminish as he progresses.

“Saul McLeod.” The Milgram Experiment, Saul Mcleod, 1 Jan. 1970, www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html. American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3. There were a lot of things wrong with The Milgram Experiment that needed to be changed to meet the APA's Code of Conduct. First “Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity” that something Milgram Experiment didn’t have, again when the participant wanted to quit the scientist wanted to continue with the experiment not caring to see if the subject was alright or alive. Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, there were 30 switches on the shock generator, as a result, each time when the subject makes a mistake, increasing the level of electric shock that can easily harm them. If the participants refused to administer a shock or can’t continue they were giving prods to ensure they continued. My conclusion The Milgram Experiment is that I understand people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even though of harming an innocent human being. People tend to obey orders whatever they are told too and believe whoever is telling them what to

Ethically the man giving the shocks knew it was wrong, but the methodological aspect was that the professor continued to acknowledge him to go on with the study. The concern will mainly be how easily it is to impact a person’s decisions whether it is enforced or just simply wrong.

One might think that this experiment will stimulate the new research in the area of human obedience, but this did not occur. Despite the difficulties and the courage of Burger to conduct a partial replication of the original study, it did not produce any different outcomes and did not spark any new ideas in psychology (Burger, 2009). Instead, the researcher had to deal with an enormous amount of different commentaries and controversy. My main rationale for disapproving the Burger’s study is ethical characteristics of the Milgram paradigm. More specifically, now we have the Ethical Rules of the APA, which tell us that researchers should honor rights of participants to privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw the experiment. However, Milgram’s paradigm clearly challenges these fundamental rights and creates even more ethical dilemmas. Another rationale that I can include is the infliction of increasing pain on an unwilling participant, a characteristic that is unacceptable in modern psychological studies. Therefore, I would disapprove such experiment, because of ethical non-compliance and little contribution to the field. As for me, I view following ethical practices in my dissertation project work as a crucial element for success. It will allow me to produce reliable, meaningful and relevant scholarly data that would not be a subject to ethical

Stanley Milgram a psychologist decided to test obedience and its effects on a human. The trial began with a recipient aka “teacher” willingly delivering shocks to “the student”. When in reality there was no “student”, but a voice recording that would project a man’s voice complaining he was in pain. The recipients at any moment could stop the whole procedure, and not carry on with the shocks if they wished. What Milgram and his colleague’s predicted was that recipients would stop after a certain amount of shocks. The concluding results were wrong; many actually went through all the way to 450 volts. When Milgram published his findings another psychologist by the name Diana Baumrind criticized Milgram proclaiming it was unethical. She argued

(Brennan 2016). All the students surveyed believed that only a very small percentage of teachers would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally surveyed his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few participants would progress beyond a very strong shock. In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65% of the experiment participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock. Milgram however also noticed their behaviour. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Many were very uncomfortable administrating the shocks. At some point throughout the experiment, every participant stopped and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for taking part in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, participants displayed varying degrees of anxious behaviour. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures. (McLeod,

The “set in stone” guidelines should be followed to control the experiments and give the jury standards to judge on. Short and long term health issues are the biggest concerns. Some experiments could make a participant crazy or fearful if given the right circumstances. Along with experiments affecting mental heath, physical health could be affected as well. One could refuse to