Jim, Here is a description (Milgram, 1974, pp. 116-118) of Milgram's Experiment 17 in which he used peer models:
"Four apparent subjects appear at the laboratory to take part in an experiment on the effects of collective teaching and punishment on memory and learning. Three of them are confederates of the experimenter and one is a naïve subject. The experimenter explains that three teachers and one learner are to be used in the study, and by means of a rigged drawing, the naïve subject is assigned the position of teacher 3. The roles of teacher 1, teacher 2, and learner are filled by the confederates. The learner is strapped into the electric chair and the three teachers are seated before the shock generator. Teacher 1 is told to read the list of word pairs, teacher 2 tells the subject whether his answer is correct or incorrect, and teacher 3 (the naïve subject) administers punishment. As in the basic experiment, the subjects are instructed to raise the shock level one step each time the learner makes an error. Behavior of confederates. The confederates comply with the experimenters orders through the 150-volt shock, which provokes the victims first vehement protest. At this point teacher 1 informs the experimenter that he does not wish to participate further, because of the learners complaints. The experimenter insists that teacher 1 continue. However, teacher 1 is not swayed by the experimenters commands, gets up from his chair in front of the shock generator, and takes a seat in another part of the room. Since the experimenters efforts to get the subject to return to the generator are futile, the experimenter instructs the remaining two subjects to continue with the experiment. Teacher 3 (the naïve subject) is to handle the reading of word pairs, in addition to his regular job of administering electric shock to the learner. After shock level 14 (210 volts) is administered, teacher 2, expressing concern for the learner, refuses to participate further. The experimenter orders him to continue, but he too leaves his chair in front of the generator and seats himself at an opposite corner of the room, saying, Im willing to answer any of your questions, but Im not willing to shock that man against his will. Ill have no part of it. At this point the naïve subject is seated alone in front of the shock generator. He has witnessed the defiant actions of two peers. The experimenter orders him to continue, stating that it is essential that the experiment be completed. The results of the experiment are shown in Table 5. In this group setting, 36 of the 40 subjects defy the experimenter (while the corresponding number in the absence of group pressure is 14). The effects of peer rebellion are very impressive in undercutting the experimenters authority. Indeed, of the score of experimental variations completed in this study, none was so effective in undercutting the experimenters authority as the manipulation reported here." Quite a bit different than how we saw peer models used last night. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper Colophon Books. Jon =============== Jon Mueller Professor of Psychology North Central College 30 N. Brainard St. Naperville, IL 60540 voice: (630)-637-5329 fax: (630)-637-5121 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu >>> "Jim Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1/4/2007 12:28 AM >>> Hi In the original Milgram experiments model of refusal markedly increased quitting in the actual subjects. Less than 10% continued to end? So something different in this replication? Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03-Jan-07 11:12:05 PM >>> If you didn't see "Primetime" last night, you're going to wish you had. They actually did a *replication* of the Milgram obedience experiment. They used a social psychologist from U. Santa Clara (Berger?) as a consultant and got approval of the procedure from the APA. The only important change seems to have been that they limited the highest shock to 150 volts, rather than 450, arguing that over 80% of people who went to 150 in the original study, which is the point where the "learner" demands to stop and refers to his heart condition, went on to 450. What happened? 70% of the "teachers" gave the "learner" the highest level of shock (67%, I think, in the original). They also did a breakdown of men (n=18) and women (n=22): 65% of men and 73% of women continued on to the highest shock level. They added an interesting twist in some cases, where they used a second confederate as a co-teacher who started the procedure, but then claimed not to be able to continue after a certain point (expecting that this might serve as a moral model for the real subject). The subject was asked to pickup where the confederate had left off, and 63% of those went to the highest shock as well. Plus ¨a change... Regards, Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-5115 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo ============================= --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
