>From the NY Times:
Hey, What if Contestants Give Each Other
Shocks?
By ERICA GOODE
LONG before anyone ever heard of reality
television, or its most recent
efflorescence, "Survivor," a group of
scientists began putting ordinary people into
unusual situations and observing how they
behaved.
They were social psychologists, experts in the
systematic study of behavior. And they had
noble aspirations. Stirred by the events of their
time -- the Holocaust, prison riots, the
indifference of bystanders as a young woman
was stabbed to death on a New York street --
they sought to understand the darkest human
deeds in the hope of finding ways to prevent
them.
In particular, the psychologists, who carried
out a variety of experiments at prestigious
universities from the 1950's and into the
1970's, were fascinated by the power of
situations to influence people's behavior,
sometimes even overriding individual
personality traits and the dictates of personal
conscience.
The experiments were compelling, and still
enthrall undergraduates when they are taught
in introductory psychology courses. In
perhaps the most famous, Dr. Stanley
Milgram's study of obedience to authority, the
subjects meekly delivered what they believed
were potentially fatal electric shocks to
another person when ordered to do so by an
experimenter in a white coat.
In another, student volunteers at Stanford University who were
randomly
assigned to play prisoners or guards for a two-week stay in a
simulated
prison became so caught up in their roles that the study had to be
halted after
a week.
But the research also stimulated heated ethical debate. Subjects
were
sometimes deceived about the true purpose of the experiments,
which critics
felt was a breach of trust. And some worried about the long-term
effects on
the subjects, who often acted, under the pressures of the
experimental
paradigm, in ways they later found abhorrent.
In a famous 1964 critique, Dr. Diana Baumrind, a psychology
professor at
the University of California at Berkeley, wrote: "I would not like
to see
experiments such as Milgram's proceed unless the subjects were
fully
informed of the dangers of serious aftereffects and his
correctives were
clearly shown to be effective in restoring their state of
well-being."
By the late 1970's, ethical guidelines discouraged the use of most
deception in
psychological research, and required thorough debriefing of
subjects. As a
result, neither the Milgram study nor the Stanford prison
experiment could be
carried out today.
That is, in the world of science.
The producers of reality television shows, however, are unfettered
by such
constraints. Their subjects are "Survivor" wannabes, who stand to
win fame
and fortune. The purpose is simply to entertain, titillate -- and,
oh yes, to
make money. And the situations eager contestants are plopped into
are limited
only by developers' imaginations.
They can put people on islands and make them eat bugs, walk on hot
coals
and choose between their comrades (as in "Survivor"). They can
chain four
women to a man for a week (as in "Chains of Love," recently bought
by
NBC). They can, much like the experimenters in the Stanford study,
lock
people up in prison (as in "Jailbreak," recently acquired by ABC,
in which the
inmates will try to escape).
And in a twist that oddly merges the science of the past and the
entertainment
of the present, one production company, Film Garden Entertainment
in Los
Angeles, is even planning to re-enact the Milgram study and other
social
psychology classics in a 13-part series called "The Human
Experiment."
"We were very intrigued, long before 'Survivor,' in producing a
show that
would reveal certain things about human behavior in a context that
was
entertaining and at the same time educational and legitimate,"
said Nancy
Jacobs Miller, Film Garden's president. She said her company, like
other
producers, is hoping that a cache of reality offerings might see
them through
an anticipated strike by actors and writers next year.
Film Garden is also trying to enlist as a consultant Dr. Philip
Zimbardo, the
Stanford psychology professor who, with two graduate students,
directed
the prison study three decades ago.
Ms. Miller has asked him to help choose experiments and guide
their
execution.
But like other psychologists, Dr. Zimbardo, who said he has not
decided
whether to participate in the project, has a mixed reaction to
reality television.
On the one hand, he said, "Survivor" and other such shows are
"wonderful,
because they make the public aware of how fascinating it is to
observe
human behavior."
"Candid Camera," he said, was arguably the networks' first venture
into
reality television.
Allen Funt, the show's host, "was one of the first intuitive
psychologists," Dr.
Zimbardo said. "He put ordinary people into unusual circumstances
and we
watched how they improvised. That's what makes people want to be
psychologists."
In fact, at the American Psychological Association's recent annual
meeting,
the late Mr. Funt was honored for "lifelong contributions to
psychology and
the public."
And like the experiments of an earlier era, reality TV shows can
be useful in
demonstrating the power of circumstance to determine behavior,
revealing,
Dr. Zimbardo pointed out, "that people are incredibly complex, and
that we
can alternately be Hitler at one time and Mother Teresa the next."
Yet television is not science, despite the advertisements for
"Survivor" calling
it "the ultimate human experiment." Participants are not randomly
selected,
the way experimental subjects would be. There are no control
groups.
And the very intensity of such situations presents dangers.
"Simulated reality can become reality," Dr. Zimbardo said.
"Everybody knew
in the prison study that it was an experiment, which is a formal
game. But it
didn't make any difference. People were having emotional
breakdowns."
Psychologists quickly realized the risks of such research, and
took steps to
address them.
As a result of the prison study, Dr. Zimbardo said, "We were able
to do
good. We were able to convey to the participants what their
behavior
illustrated. The public learned something. The scientists learned
something.
And the participants learned something." B UT television makes no
attempt to
use reality shows as teaching devices. And as it strings the
tightwire, it
provides few nets. Ever since the suicide of a contestant voted
off the
original, Swedish version of "Survivor," American networks have
tried to
screen applicants for psychological problems. Some shows,
including
"Survivor," have psychologists on staff and provide counseling for
participants voted off.
In general, though, the philosophy appears to be that participants
in reality
shows know what they are getting into.
The networks are counting on what anyone who has taken a
psychology
course -- and found the Milgram experiment and the Stanford study
the most
fascinating research the field has to offer -- knows: Reality,
even manipulated
reality, is hands down more compelling than fiction.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
