In the criminal justice system,attorneys may occasionally ask for a change of venue if they feel that their clients may not get a fair trial in a location due to widespread publicity and other factors.A change of venue may necessitate the sitting of a fair and impartial jury.While sipping on a pina colada here at my oceanfront condo I began to wonder why the rationale behind the change of venue does not seem to be utilized in psychological experimentation.To elucidate, we normally do not ask subjects if they have heard,read about some aspects of the experiment or study. Obviously we should keep subjects blind,but it is also obvious that if some subjects have read,heard about any aspect of the experiment this subject juror should be disqualified from taking part in the experiment. The Milgram experiment is inserted in all psychology texts It is difficult for me to imagine that subjects taking part in replicated experiments would not be aware of it .It would seem that it would be wise to assess how much the subjects know and make some decision as to participation in the experiment.Personally ,if I knew that the confederate was not getting any shocks.I would probably go to the extreme dangerous voltage :-) But do you see my point? Attorneys ask for a change of venue,so maybe experimenters could be justified for asking for a change of subjects. How naive are those human subjects anyway? Better stick to rats? Send me something.
Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
