Behavioral Sciences Additional Practice: Chapter 8

Passage

In 1961,Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram hypothesized that many of the crimes which took place during the Holocaust occurred not because people had a shared morality, but because they were merely following orders.Milgram believed that when people were ordered by an authority figure to do things that conflicted with their conscience,an inherent deference to authority would lead people to perform actions outside their normal comfort level. In fact, he believed that people would perform activities that were completely against their conscience. To test this hypothesis,Milgram performed a series of experiments which he detailed in his book Obedience to Authority:An Experimental View.

A psychology student decided to replicate Milgram's hypothesis with an experiment of his own. He recruited participants on his college campus to take part in a psychological experiment by offering an incentive of $10. The group of people that the student recruited were predominantly college-age males.He convinced the volunteers that they were randomly selected to be the “teacher” in the experiment when in reality, the volunteers were always selected to be teachers. The teacher was tasked with schooling a set of matching pictures and words to the “learner” who was a confederate of the student. The pictures were flashed on a screen and the learner was supposed to recite the matching word. If the learner answered incorrectly,the teacher pushed a button which administered a small burn to the learner. As the learner matched subsequent questions incorrectly, the temperature was increased on the burning mechanism.

The student supervised the experiment in the same room with the teacher and the learner and explained that the burns received by the learner were painful but were a necessary component of punishment for wrong answers. Unbeknownst to the teacher, the learner was an actor and was not actually receiving burns but was trained to react as if he was receiving increasingly painful burns. The learner thrashed, screamed, swore, and asked that the experiment be discontinued. As the experiment progressed, the student found that the teachers indicated that they were uncomfortable and did not want to continue to burn the learner.They became visibly uncomfortable, fidgeting, and sweating; however, they continued to burn the learner when prompted by the experimenter to continue.

The results of the student's experiment confirmed the results of Milgram's original experiment with the majority of the teachers administering the final and apparently most painful burn. The student discovered that although the volunteers administered the final burn, the majority appeared extremely distressed with several volunteers offering to return the money which the student had provided as an incentive, biting their lips, trembling, and having nervous fits of laughter.

The fact that volunteers continued to administer burns to the learner but showed distress caused by holding conflicting ideals through laughter, sweating, and trembling can be best explained using which psychological theory?

A. Theory of cognitive dissonance

B.Theory of social facilitation

C. The bystander effect

D. Theory of social loafing

A. Theory of cognitive dissonance

Explanation: Step by Step

Simplify the question

The question indicates that the volunteer teachers\' actions do not match their thoughts or desires.While they continued to administer burns, they felt uncomfortable doing so; thus there is a discrepancy between the volunteer teachers\' beliefs and their actual behavior. Another way of asking the question would therefore be: Which physiological theory best explains a discrepancy between one’s beliefs and one’s actual behavior?

What is known? Unknown?

A quick peek at the answer options shows that they all mention psychological theories.

We should be familiar with these theories on Test Day.

·Bystander effect-Describes not doing anything to help someone who is in distress; the larger the group of people who are watching someone who needs help,the less likely it is that person would actually receive any help from bystanders

·Cognitive dissonance-Describes conflict between two opposing thoughts, opinions, or actions

·Social facilitation-Describes how people perform better on simple tasks when these are done in presence of others

·Social loafing-Tendency of people to take it easy and not making their best effort during group tasks.

Although we know what these theories mean, we don't know yet how they relate to what the volunteers think and do, so let's take a look at the relevant information in the passage.

What relevant information is provided in the passage?

Paragraph four specifies:”...although the volunteers administered the final burn, the majority appeared extremely distressed with several volunteers offering to return the money which the student had provided as an incentive, biting their lips, trembling, and having nervous fits of laughter, so the volunteer teachers did administer something they believed was painful, yet they felt very uncomfortable doing so.”

What is your prediction?

We can now predict that the theory of cognitive dissonance A is a perfect match for explaining a conflict or discrepancy between one's thoughts and one's actual behavior. The volunteers did administer something painful, but it caused them distress to perform the action.The bystander effect C doesn't apply here because the volunteer teachers caused the distress. Because the volunteer is not working within a group but rather is the sole individual responsible for inflicting burns, social loafing D can be eliminated.The volunteer teachers' performance is not affected by the presence of others B. We can therefore be confident that A is correct.

The student modeled his experiment after real-life scenarios in which authority figures ask subservient people to perform actions which conflict with their personal beliefs. Which of the following is most analogous to the student\'s model situation?

A. A pilot asking his copilot to donate blood on his behalf even though giving blood is against his copilot's religion

B. A general commanding his troops to massacre a village full of women and children even though the soldiers know that the village poses no threat.

C. A physician requires that her patient removes a hat to examine a rash.

D. A child tricking her friend into eating peanuts even though she is allergic.

B. A general commanding his troops to massacre a village full of women and children even though the soldiers know that the village poses no threat.

Explanation: Step by Step

Simplify the passage

The question involves an authority figure and one or more subordinates. Specifically, it is a situation that involves a request or command and the question of whether subordinates will follow requests/orders that are against their personal beliefs. We are asked to identify a similar scenario; therefore, another way of asking the question would be:Which scenario represents obeying a request from an authority figure even if it goes against the individual's beliefs?

What is known? Unknown?

We know that we have to identify a scenario with both an authority figure and a subordinate. We also know that the scenario must involve something that the subordinate does that contradicts his or her own personal beliefs. Whereas we know that we have to identify the best example of an authority figure, we don't know yet which scenario is similar to the scenario in the passage,so let's take a look at the relevant information in the passage.

What relevant information is provided in the passage?

Paragraph two states: “If the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher pushed a button which administered a small burn to the learner. As the learner matched subsequent questions incorrectly, the temperature was increased on the burning mechanism.”

Paragraph three further specifies that an authority figure “。。。supervised the experiment in the same room with the teacher and the learner and explained that the burns received by the learner were painful but were a necessary component of punishment for wrong answers.”

The authority figure thus provides a rationale for the punishment while attempting to coerce the volunteer teacher to administer the punishment. We have to look for an answer option that best resembles this specific scenario.

What is your prediction?

The best example of an authority figure is the general commanding his troops in B. We do know that troops have to obey the commands of their general even if this means killing people.Although a pilot may have some authority over his copilot A, it pales in comparison to the authority that the general has because troops can be held accountable in a military court for failure to obey commands. The physician in C also has authority but not on the level of a military general. Additionally, C doesn't state that it goes against the patient\'s beliefs to remove his or her hat. B is indeed correct.

Later versions of the student's experiments showed that volunteers were less likely to continue to burn the learner if an additional person besides the experimenter was in the room with them. How would this affect Milgram's original hypothesis?

A. It would weaken Milgram's original assertion that people are likely to obey someone who is in a position of authority.

B. It would strengthen Milgram's assertion that randomly assigning people makes them more likely to engage in social loafing.

C.It would weaken Milgram\'s assertion that the proximity of the experimenter greatly impacts the results.

D. It would not strengthen or weaken Milgram's original hypothesis.

D. It would not strengthen or weaken Milgram's original hypothesis.

Explanation: Step by Step

Simplify the question

The question specifies that the volunteer teacher administered something painful to the learner and that the volunteer teacher is less likely to do that when someone else (someone other than the experimenter) is present. Another way of asking the question would be:How does the presence of another individual impact Milgram's original theory?

What is known? Unknown?

We know that Milgram's theory describes that people will obey an authority figure even if it goes against the individual’s personal beliefs. Here besides dealing with the presence of someone else in addition to the presence of an authority figure, how that presence would influence Milgram's specific hypothesis is also being determined; however,we have no information about the status of this person. In other words, we don't know if the additional person is also an authority figure or just a random person, so let's first obtain some information from the passage to reiterate our specific knowledge of Milgram\'s experiment.

What relevant information is provided in the passage?

The passage details Milgram's hypothesis in the following manner:

“In 1961,Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram hypothesized that many of the crimes which took place during the Holocaust occurred not because people had a shared morality, but because they were merely following orders. Milgram believed that when people were ordered by an authority figure to do things that conflicted with their conscience,an inherent deference to authority would lead people to perform actions outside their normal comfort level.In fact, he believed that people would perform activities that were completely against their conscience. To test this hypothesis, Milgram performed a series of experiments which he detailed in his book Obedience to Authority:An Experimental View.”

We therefore know that Milgram specifically outlined the presence and commands of just one authority figure.

What is your prediction?

We have already assessed that we don't have any specific information about the presence of an additional person; hence we do not know whether this person is also an authority figure. This means in effect that it is hard to make any predictions. Our best bet is therefore that we cannot make any predictions which is articulated in D, but could the addition of an extra person of whom we don't have any status information strengthen or weaken Milgram's hypothesis? Let's take a closer look at social loafing B-in other words,administering something painful as being facilitated by the presence of someone else. Yet,social loafing means making less of an effort- so it would certainly not strengthen Milgram's hypothesis. We just have to simply acknowledge that we don't have sufficient information to assess whether the presence of someone else would weaken or strengthen Milgram's hypothesis, which makes D the correct answer.

The student's experiment was criticized because it had several different types of bias. Which of the following is NOT a type of bias found in the student's experiment?

A. Sample bias, because the majority of the student's participants were male.

B. Self-selection bias, because all of Milgram's participants volunteered to be in the study.

C. Sample bias, because all of the participants were compensated which led to a biased participant demographic.

D. Experimenter bias, since the student expected participants to cease burning the learner.

D. Experimenter bias, since the student expected participants to cease burning the learner.

Explanation: Step by Step

Simplify the question

The question talks about critiques pertaining to the experiment in the passage in which someone attempted to replicate Milgram's experiment. Specifically, the critique addresses bias in the research design of the experimenter; however, the question asks about a type of bias that is NOT feasible given the experiment. Another way therefore of asking the question would be: Which type of bias is NOT a flaw in the experiment?

What is known? Unknown?

All of the answer options mention potential flaws in the experiment, so we have to carefully review the experiment to identify which research flaw could NOT be a flaw in this specific situation. The answer options mention sample bias, experimenter bias, and self-selection bias. These are types of bias with which we are familiar.

·Experimenter bias-Occurs when experimenter either consciously or subconsciously alters results in order to meet expected outcomes

·Sample bias-Type of selection bias in which some members of target population are less likely to be selected than others

·Self-selection bias-Arises in any situation in which individuals select themselves into group, thereby causing biased sample; for example, when people volunteer for study or experiment

Let's next check the passage for specific information about the experiment.

What relevant information is provided in the passage?

Paragraph two informs us that:

“[a] psychology student decided to replicate Milgram's hypothesis with an experiment of his own. He recruited participants on his college campus to take part in a psychological experiment by offering an incentive of $10. The group of people that the student recruited were predominantly college-age males. He convinced the volunteers that they were randomly selected to be the “teacher” in the experiment when in reality, the volunteers were always selected to be teachers.”

This information means that we can identify sample bias and also that the volunteers were self-selected. Pretty much every male that wanted to be included in the study could participate which is the opposite of a random sample.

Other useful information from paragraph three possibly about experimenter bias informs us that [t]he student supervised the experiment in the same room with the teacher and the learner and explained that the burns received by the learner were painful but were a necessary component of punishment for wrong answers. It appears that the student followed a research protocol. It is also clear that the student (experimenter) expected that the volunteer teachers would obey and administer the burns.

What is your prediction?

We have already identified that the study could have sample bias and self-selection bias, so A, B, and C can be eliminated. But does D really make sense? Here is where we look at the rationale or the reasoning why experimenter bias could or could not be the case. Of course, any study can have experimenter bias. D mentions that the experimenter expected participants to cease burning the learner, so as much as we can envision that the study would have some type of experimenter bias, the rationale doesn't explain it, because it depicts the opposite of what the experimenter would expect-namely that the presence of an authority figure would lead to compliance. Here it says that no compliance is expected.We can therefore immediately conclude that D is correct.