Judgment Under Uncertainty: The Validity Of

The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on

The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote

As evidence for the basis of judgments and decisions, evaluated in my own reports and records, I need to show that I accurately and clearly record the judgements and decisions and evidence on which the judgements have been based and where judgement is based on informed opinion. I do record other evidence and reports which support my judgements and decisions and conflict with my judgements and decisions. It is as well very important to clarify events and decisions.

Most decisions are made with analysis, but some are judgment calls not susceptible to analysis due to time or information constraints. Please write about a judgment call you’ve made recently that couldn’t be analyzed. It can be a big or small one, but should focus on a business issue. What was the situation, the alternatives you considered and evaluated, and your decision making process? Be sure to explain why you chose the alternative you did relative to others considered.

The ethics of the study were however called into question (Banyard, 2012). One protestors among many was Diana Baumrind (Banyard, 2012). Baumrind (1964) argued whether the ‘welfare of the participants’ was considered Banyard (2012, p.79). Baumrind (1964) further criticised the experiment for the damage it could do the public’s perception of psychology (Banyard, 2012). In Milgram’s (1963) defence, he was not ignorant of the potential harm caused to participants, (Banyard, 2012). In fact, he was

Although the study was done on the computer, there was no mention that they were not put in harm. The authors could have included something on how no physical examinations were going on in with the subjects. The second standard is informed consent. There was no direct mention of informed consent. The authors could have stated that all volunteers provided informed consent, and that would have met that guideline. The last guideline is confidentiality, and that guideline was met since no person information or results were included in the

The first area was the availability heuristic section. There were two biases that indicated whether or not you were making the right decision. The first was ease of recall, or the fact that we tend to decide things based on what comes to mind easily. The second was retrievability, the fact that we base decisions on the frequency of a particular pattern or event. We base many of our decisions on these two concepts.

On the contrary, the screams heard are a recording and the whole thing is a gimmick to observe the subject's actions to the experiment. There is a person in a lab coat who pressures the subject to keep moving on with the test, otherwise it is a false test. The man in the lab coat was trying to override the conscience of the person being tested. The test concluded that people are able to persuade a person to go against their conscience, a lot like Hitler and the Holocaust (K. Fetterly - Authority and Obedience

The experimenters also told the students that no one would be monitoring the conversation and that when the experiment concluded, they would be asked questions. With that being said, the students had to go in order and speak for a maximum of two minutes. One of the subjects mentioned that he was prone to random seizures. What the students were not told was that they were the only real subject in the group and everyone else was just recordings, including the student that was prone to

The main ethical issue with this experiment was the use of deception as the participants did not know the truth behind this study. Participants believe that they were shocking the learners and they were under severe stress due to this is possible that they had suffered psychological injuries. The participants have the right to withdraw from the study if they wanted; however, this was not made clear to them. Also, participants did not receive enough information about the study.

The study conducted repeats the set up of others in which there are two control groups. In Dr. Weinstein’s study, each control group was given 4 sets of 12 people’s names attached to faces. Each group was told that they may or may not be tested after each set, with a definite test after studying all 4 sets. In reality, one control group was tested after each set while the other group was only tested on all 4 sets at the end.

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

Availability heuristic can be defined as making a choice based on immediate and easy examples that comes to the mind more easily when evaluating a decision. Even though availability heuristic has many pros such as saving time when making a choice, it does come with cons. This is because the availability heuristic distorts our understanding of real threats and risks. For example, Tom is a 10-year-old boy that adores puppies and loves playing with them. One day he saw a puppy bite its owner. Due to this small incident, Tom avoids playing with puppies even though the likelihood of it happening is slim. Since this heuristic draws from immediate and easy examples, it uses system 1 to evaluate our decisions. As we already know system 1 can lead to a lot of incorrect assessments in comparison to system 2.

“Availability Heuristic” which is how people judge the probabilities of future events based on how easy those events are to imagine or to retrieve from memory lead to further biases like “hindsight bias”. Hindsight Bias imply that since events that actually happened are easier to imagine than the events that are counterfactual therefore people attach a higher probability they previously attached to events that later happened. Hindsight bias leads to “second guessing” or Monday-morning quarterbacking and can partly be responsible for lawsuits against stockbrokers who lost money for their clients. Another bias called “curse of knowledge”, i.e. people who know a lot find it hard to imagine how little others know. According Jean Piaget, Development

The design in this experiment was cross sectional and quasi experiment. The design was appropriate for the study because researchers want to understand the factors that influenced girls’ attitude toward novel activities. Thus, cross sectional study helps them to prove their predictions. In this study, there are four studies in total. In study one, researchers presented three tasks. In task one, researchers told a story about a really smart person without telling the gender, then asked what the gender of the protagonist was. In task two, they children pair different adults by guessing was really smart. In task three, children play a novel puzzle in which they have to give objects genders. In study two, researchers replicated study one. Study three, children were asked about their interest in really smart or try hard games. In study four, divide the groups according to the age, and asked for their interest in really smart games. Overall, the design was appropriate in order to obtain all the information at the same time, so they can proof their ideas. However, the sample did not represent the whole population because seventy five percent were white and middle class children. Thus,