AP Psych Summer Homework assessment

One Brain or Two background info

Right vs Left side of the brain, they perform different functions. Left side is responsible for movement in the right side of the body and the  right side of the brain is responsible for movement in the left side of the body. Left brain controls the ability to use language. The right brain controls the need for artistic activities. Many believe that those two hemispheres are completely separate and function differently and by themselves. This idea was researched and pioneered by **Roger W. Sperry.** Working with animal subjects, in one of the tests a cat was surgically altered so that the left eye was controlled by the left brain and the right eye with the right brain. There were no ill effects. The cat was placed in a maze to see if it could maneuver around it, with the right eye covered it could but not with the left eye covered. Perry would receive a nobel prize for his work, and would go on to work at Caltech. There he would be joined by **Michale Gazzinga** to study the different hemispheres.The two hemispheres of the brain communicate via the corpus callosum which is made of 200 million fibers, in order to study each half of the brain, it must be cut. This would not be allowed today as it goes against ethics, however in the 1950s an opportunity was given, in patients with epilepsy cutting the corpus callosum would reduce or stop the seizures. Sperry and Gazzinga did a study to see the effects of the surgery.

One Brain or Two Theoretical proposition

Wanted to know the ability of the two hemispheres to function separately  and the unique abilities of each hemisphere. Would the two sides be able to coordinate with one another and let the body function normally? Would skills of the left and right hemispheres be transferred to the other side of the body? These were the questions that Gazzinga and Sperry sought to answer.

One Brain or Two Mehtod

Three tests developed to see the end result and change to a person’s mental and perceptual capabilities. One to examine visual abilities, The test would allow a picture of a word or parts of a word be transmitted to only one part of the brain, the right or left. The second part would test the ability to feel and have touch simulation. Subject would touch an object without knowing and seeing the material.  The third part would test hearing abilities, this would be rather trickier as when you hear from one ear, sensations go to both sides.

One Brain or Two Results

After surgery, persons intelligence level, personality and emotional level were unchanged. However with a deeper dive, the results of tests revealed something else. Visual Abilities= The first tests had a board of light and the subject would see a point in the middle and stare there, when lights were lit up across the board, the patients said that only the right side was lit. Next the lights were flashed on the left only, the subjects said it wasn't lit, the conclusion was that the right side is blind. However when they were asked to point to lights they were able to do so, the conclusion was that both parts were able to see but they said they couldn't due to the fact that the center for speech is in the left brain's hemisphere and the left side must've seen the lights to say that they were lit. Tactile abilities= In the test, an object was placed into one hand and the subject would describe what it is and its uses while not being able to see it.  When placed in the right hand the subject could describe the object however when placed onto the left hand the patient couldn’t name and describe the object. They were then asked to match the object in the left hand to other objects, they could do that as they were able to use their left brain for linguistic abilities. Visual Tests and Tactile test= Subject were shown the image of an object but were unable to describe it with their right hemisphere. However if they were allowed to use their left hand and touch the object they were able to find the one that was shown to them. In the test a cigarette was shown and the item they chose was an ashtray, showing the fact that the right hemisphere can analyze objects as well. However they were unable to name and describe the objects, the left hemisphere had no connection to the right in terms of knowledge, perception and thought. Another test on language processing abilities was done where the “he” of the word “heart” was projected to the right visual field and the “art” to the left. They all said they saw “art”, but when asked to point with the left hand to which they saw they pointed to “he” demonstrated that the fight can comprehend language just in a nonverbal way. Subjects were also told an object and were asked to get it from a grab bag that didn’t allow them to see the objects, this showed that the right hemisphere can comprehend language.  Another test showed that in terms of  a verbal response, the right hemisphere couldn’t speak. Another test made patients spell with plastic letters using their hands, with the  left hand they were able to do so but were unable to tell the word they spelt, proving the left hemisphere is superior. Right hemisphere is greater when it comes to visual tasks.

One Brain or Two Discussion

two brains exist in a person. They have their own unique qualities. Possibility to process information  double the time. Research proves that a split brain person can do a cognitive task faster than a normal person doing one. 

One Brain or Two Significance

proved many hypotheses and showed the abilities of the brain and the two hemispheres. Left brain is better at speaking, writing, reading, language and mathematics. Right hemisphere can recognize faces, solve problems, artistic activities, and symbolic reasonings. Other researchers have carried on their own discoveries and experiments. Now it is known that there are other structures on the brain and not just two hemispheres. This knowledge allows them to treat patients suffering from effects of stroke and head injury.

One Brain or Two criticism

many dispute their findings. Some believe that the brain needs to be combined and not be developed on one hemisphere more than the other instead of splitting them their working together is needed. 

One Brain or Two recent applications

many have used this study  as a basis for their own research. One French study concluded that children born without the corpus callosum still had their hemisphere connected in some way as information was still being transmitted. Another study showed that people with split brains can identify if a drawing was made with right or left handed people. One study shows how a dominant hemisphere can influence a person's interests and career choices. 

One Brain or Two conclusion

some used this to conduct psychological studies for conditions like multiple personality disorder to see if the hemispheres act differently or if one takes over for a while. 

One Brain or Two Intro

The area of psychology that studies human behavior  and biological processes is typically called psychobiology or biological psychology. Focuses on actions of the brain and nervous system. Receiving stimuli and information form the environment through your senses and the brain organizes the information to create a perception of the world and the effects on body and behavior.

It’s Not Just About Salivating Dogs! Intro

Our brains associate certain things with others due to how we are conditioned. We learn from our past experiences. Process called __Classical Conditioning theory of learning__ which was developed and articulated by **Ivan Pavlov**. Came up on this theory while he was learning physiology and the digestive system.  Earned a Nobel prize due to work on the digestive system. Switched careers to study psychology. Dogs would be used as subjects and they would be  used to see how much they salivate when a food or non food reaches their mouth, they would use a surgically applied tube to measure the amount of saliva. He noticed that when moist food was given to the dog, it salivated less than when dry food was given. Pavlov called it a reflex or response that occurs to a specific stimulus without learning . After a while it was noticed that the dogs salivated before food was given or even near them, this was due to their experience in the lab changing their reflexes whilst in the lab. The secretion was provoked by the vessels, the person that brought food or by the sound of their footsteps. 

It’s Not Just About Salivating Dogs! Theoretical proposition

Pavlov theorized that certain things triggered stimuli in the lab to cause the dogs to salivate. Pavlov theorized there to be 2 types of reflexes. Unconditioned which are inborn and automatic in a species and Conditioned which are acquired with experience. Unconditioned reflexes are formed by unconditioned stimuli producing an unconditioned response. Conditioned reflexes consist of conditioned stimulus and produce a conditioned response.  Pavlov wanted to know how these unconditioned responses were present. He theorized that due to specific things being present when the dog was fed, it would become associated with  food, before it being related to food that thing was a neutral stimulus. Before being associated with food, the footsteps of a lab assistant would be a neutral stimulus but when they were fed everyday and heard those same footsteps became a conditioned stimulus. He created a diagram to show the progression of a neutral stimulus to a conditioned stimulus. Pavlov used a metronome to condition dogs to salivate for his experiments.

It’s Not Just About Salivating Dogs! method and Results

Pavlov built a special soundproof lab allowing for complete isolation of subjects to administer certain stimuli and not others with a controlled environment. Pavlov set food as an unconditioned stimulus and metronome as a neutral stimulus. Over several trials dogs were exposed to the metronome and then given food, this made it so that whenever a metronome would tick it would stimulate the secretion of saliva. The metronome was now a conditioned stimulus. Several tests with different Unconditioned stimuli would be done. One was with vanilla and lemon, where the dog would be exposed to a vanilla scent and then be given lemon juice which would cause dogs to salivate, the result after 20 pairings would be that after a while the vanilla scent would cause dogs to salivate. A visual test would also be done where the dogs would be exposed to a rotating object before seeing food, after only 5 times it caused the dog to salivate. 

It’s Not Just About Salivating Dogs! Significance of finding

examining Paine major portion of human behavior and helped launch psychology as a real science.  The classical conditioning theory is widely accepted and is virtually unchanged since Pavlov’s original ideas and work. It explains phobias, distaste of certain foods, and  source of emotion. Anyone can use classical conditioning and change themselves to do certain things with certain stimuli. 

It’s Not Just About Salivating Dogs! Related research and recent applications

Works were used to prove the creation of emotions and phobias and treatments of phobias. One study used conditioning to stop attacks and killings on sheep on a farm, they would give the predators, wolves and coyotes, mutton with lithium chloride, causing them to vomit and feel sick. When put in a pen with sheep, they would still attack but upon smelling they would stay away from the sheep and eventually run away from them. Classical conditioning was also used on the immune system. In the study mice were given water with saccharine and then given that but with a drug to weaken the immune system. This would lead to the mice immune systems weakeaning while during water with saccharine, research is under way to see if the opposite is possible. Many articles and research use Pavlov as their basis for discussion. Another study showed that if a classical conditioning behavior is put on extinction the response may return if the stimulus is encountered in a different situation. 

It’s Not Just About Salivating Dogs! Conclusion

classical conditioning and Pavlov’s research has had a huge impact on the field of psychology and modern psychology wouldn’t have been the same without it. 

A prison by any other name intro 1

Social psychology is the study of human interaction and the effects of behaviors on one another. The area of psychology is vast and covers many different things related to human emotions and behaviors. Contains the most landmark studies. Studies in the section provide new insights on human behavior, sparked new research from this theory and created controversy over research ethics. 

A prison by any other name intro 2

Very hard to do research on the prison environment as researchers would have to interview prisoners, guards and gather information after the release of prisoners to make assumptions. However a prison can not be scientifically controlled and conclusions about the impact of prison on behavior can not be made. **Phillip Zimbardo, Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and David Jaffe** worked around this by creating a simulated prison where some would be guards and others prisoners in Stanford University. 

A prison by any other name theoretical proposition

Zimbardo believes that the environment and situation a person is in determines how you behave more than how you are as a person. He believes that powerful situations can overwrite our internal and inherent behavioral tendencies and make us do things that we wouldn’t usually do. He wanted to know the effects of those powerful situations. 

A prison by any other name method

Zimbardo wanted to make something that closely resembled prison and got consultants and ex-convicts to help him for input. He wanted to simulate a real prison experience. He set this all up in the basement of the psychology building in Stanford.  The study was to last for 2 weeks. There were cells, a prison yard, solitary confinement and bathrooms. The place would be monitored with cameras and there would be an intercom system.

A prison by any other name participants

 prisoners were brought in by an advert offering $15($75 now) to volunteer for the study, the terms included a breach of personal privacy and rights and they would get minimal food but with their nutrition requirements met. 24 out of 100 college aged men were selected. At random, half were guards and the other half were inmates.

A prison by any other name procedure

goal was to observe, record and analyze behavior of the two groups and if the new situation overcomes personal behavior.  The participants were arrested by real cops and transported to the mock prison. Each inmate was given a uniform and a number. Each inmate has a mattress and a blanket with them inside their cell. The guards unlike the prisoners were in 8 hour shifts and there were 3 per shift. Guards were given a uniform, a night stick (not allowed to use) and sunglasses. Their job was to keep prisoners in line. 

A prison by any other name results

this is one of the most researched, studied and analyzed studies in the history of psychology. Personalities of guards and prisoners began to vanish and their roles took over within a day. Within a week their personalities, values were undone. Zimbardo wrote “Most based pathological side of a human surface”. Guards took pleasure in cruelty and thought of inmates as animals, prisoners only thought about escaping. Prisoners forgot they were participants in a study and when they wanted to leave, they wouldn’t just do it even though they were allowed to quit. Many asked to be given parole or release, when denied some had an emotional breakdown  and some became depressed. Guard enjoyed torturing the prisoners, some tried to be fair but didn’t step in when the other guards were acting like tyrants. Zimbardo himself felt like he was acting as a prison superintendent.  Many prisoners had breakdowns. Other behavior for guards included using demeaning language against prisoners, waking up inmates in the middle of the night to do inmate counts, punishing them by making them do push-ups, abusing and hurting them by shooting them with a fire extinguisher, and tried their best to break their spirit. Other behaviors for prisoners  included making escape plans, becoming subservient and abided by the rules, experienced extreme rage, and took up an “every man for himself” attitude. 

A prison by any other name recnet applications

 the study led to a spur in controversy over prison reform over its effectiveness and the results of it due to the increase in number of inmates. Zimbardo analyzed how prison had changed in 1998, and concluded that they were still ineffective and gave too much of a punishment without rehabilitation. The study was brought back into the spotlight due to the use of Guantanamo bay during the war in Iraq. Zimbardo expanded his thoughts in a book called *the Lucifer effect* to see what turns good people evil. The book didn’t talk about the smaller scale issue of prison reform but on the larger concept of human evil and how people could hurt others such as in the  Abu Ghraib prison. Zimbardo believed that they were just like us but shaped by a powerful situation, war. 

A prison by any other name conclusion

the study that was set to last 2 weeks only lasted 6 days due to how the environment changed the partakers and how they morphed into their assigned roles. The situation changed everyone, some became more violent and even Zimbardo himself was made aware of the fact that he was acting like the prison superintendent. 

The power of conformity intro

psychologist have been interested in the idea of conformity for many years. Psychologists want to know causes of human behavior like conformity. When Psychologists talk about conformity they mean social norms or unspoken rules and guidelines that a member of a group abides by. There are times when people behaved in ways they don’t usually behave even though they are against their beliefs and morals but due to being with a group that behaves that way so they conform to their ideology. In the early 1950s Solomon Asch researched conformity.  

The power of conformity theoretical propositions

Asch wanted to find out the power the need to conform influences behavior. There are many types of conformity, some general and some vague, but Asch wanted to focus on __perceptual conformity__ = extent to which people conform with each other‘s preconception of the world as in what we hear, see, taste and smell and touch. Asch started with a simple visual task to  examine in a laboratory environment.  If conformity is as powerful as they believe then the person's behavior could be manipulated to conform with group pressure. 

The power of conformity method

visual material was a card with 3 different lengths of lines called comparison lines on one card and on the other card would be another line the same length as one of the other lines.  8 participants would volunteer, however only one of them is an actual participant while the others are part of the experiment, the experimenters reveal the cards and starting at the far end of the row of “volunteers” they would answer what lines match, the process would be repeated and eventually the fake volunteers would choose the wrong line, this would test if the real volunteer would conform or not. 

The power of conformity results

about 75% of participants would conform and go along with the group at least once. For all trials combined participants would agree ⅓ of the time with the incorrect response. 

The power of conformity discussion and related research

Asch’s study clearly demonstrates the power of conformity and group pressure. The scale of this is very small as a person conforms to a very small issue to a random group of people, how strong must this influence be in real life where groups put on a stronger force of pressure and issues are more ambiguous? Results are important in two crucial ways, it demonstrates the power of conformity in a scientific way and second this research inspired a new wave of studies. A lot of new research studies elaborate on the effects of conformity on behavior and there have been many new findings. One of the findings was about social support. In this experiment Asch changed one small thing, instead of everyone choosing the wrong answer all but one chose the wrong answer, this resulted in the outcome that only 5% still conformed and agreed with the group consensus. Another finding was that the more a person is committed and attracted to a group the more likely they are to conform to it. Asch conducted another study to see the effect of size of the group on conformity. At first it seemed the bigger the group the more a person conformed, however when a closer look is taken it is evident that the connection is not simple, while it is true that conformity increases with size it’s only true for 6-7 members as it increases more than this conformity levels off and even decreased due to participants begin to suspect that this was on purpose. Another study was conducted by another set of researchers to see if the conformity would be affected based on the sex of the person. Early work indicated that women conformed more than men however  later studies figured out that the testing conditions were more comfortable for men than women during those testing in those days and psychologists know that people conform more when standard for appropriate behavior is not known. So when this test was done again in a more neutral condition there was no difference between the two sexes. There were numerous other studies done with different variables added to further understand what conditions might make someone conform.

The power of conformity cirticism

Asch’s study has revived widespread support and has been replicated in many studies with varying conditions.  One criticism is whether the study can be generalized and used in the real world. As the study in the laboratory is smaller in terms of scale than utilizing it in the real world.

The power of conformity recent applications

an article examining why teens and young adults don’t follow safe sex practices utilize Asch’s work and list peer pressure as a factor. A study incorporated Asch’s theory on why men are less likely to seek help than women and the author suggests it is due to conformity and believing they might be stigmatized for doing so. Culture seems to play an important role in conformity, countries like India and Japan have higher levels of conformity than countries like the United States. 

To help or not to help background

bystander effect

One of the most influential events in psychology was the murder of a young woman in Queens, New York, where 38 people in her neighborhood saw the attack but did nothing. Her attack could’ve been stopped and she could’ve been saved if her neighbors stepped in.  Many cities in the world have had incidents like these where people refused to step in and help. People tried to figure out the reason for the inaction, some ideas thrown around were that it was due to alienation caused by living in large cities, some blamed the neighborhood it happened in, blamed basic human nature. The incident sparked the interest of scientists and instead of blaming things wanted to figure out the psychology of those who didn’t help the victim. Concept of helping others falls into a research area of psychology called prosocial behavior*=* behavior that produces positive social consequences topics in this area of study include helping, cooperation, and resisting temptation. There are many factors that go into making a decision to help during an emergency situation, John Darley and Bibb Latané wanted to know and examine these factors. They called it the bystander intervention. Emergencies are not very common Darley and Latané estimate the average person only encounters 6 in their lifetime. This is both good and bad as we don’t have enough experience to do something if we only have 6 emergencies. Darley and Latané theorized that the large number of people who witnessed murder decreased the willingness of bystanders to step in and help.

To help or not to help theoretical proposition

Though some might think that the more bystanders there are there will be more intervention, however Darley and Latente theorized the opposite and said that due to there being more people there was less intervention during the murder. The phenomenon was called diffusion of responsibility= the number of bystanders that increase will lead to a “someone else will help” mentality. The  challenge was to recreate this situation in a lab so they could study their theory. 

To help or not to help method

the researchers needed to simulate an event that needed true emergency so the intervention behavior could be examined. They chose students from an introductory class to psychology and told them that they were interested in learning how students adjusted to university life and problems they faced. They wanted students to remain anonymous so as to not make them feel embarrassed or uncomfortable, so they decided that students would share their stories over an intercom system. The students were divided into three groups. Group one believed that only one other person was listening to them. Group two believed that there would be two other people listening. Group 3 believed there would be 5 others listening. However they were all alone and all the other voices were recorded. To create an emergency situation researchers picked a seizure as the emergency.  The experiment would begin by participants hearing the first student talking about their difficulties with studies and mention how they have a history of seizures. Then in group 1 participants would tell their story while in the other groups they’d hear another student and then speak. Then they’d hear the first student speak again where they’d have a seizure where they’d request help. The students realized that this was an emergency. Darley and Latané measured the percentage of participants in each condition who helped by notifying the experimenter, they also measured the amount of time participants waited to respond and help. Participants were only given 4 minutes to respond.

To help or not to help results

the theory that was placed by the researchers was supported with the experiment as the participants who were told were with more than one person reported the emergency  much slower than the group with only one other person. For group 1 the delay was less than one minute, group 3 had more than a three minute delay. All participants in group one reported the seizure, while only 85% reported the seizure in group 2 and only 60% in group 3 during the 4 minute period. 

To help or not to help discussion

Many thought that the participants in groups 2 and 3 didn’t care about the person however it was seen that participants were experiencing anxiety and discomfort during the attack and also showed signs of nervousness. The researchers concluded that their results were due to the number of people each group believed were present. They believe that the findings support their theory of diffusion of responsibility. Participants in groups 2 and 3 felt less responsible to help and thought someone else would handle the situation. They’d also not feel as much guilt for failing to help the student as they weren’t the only ones. Another possible explanation was put forward, called evolution apprehension= part of the reason people fail not to help is due to being afraid of being embarrassed and ridiculed. 

To help or not to help significance of finding

Latané and Darley became the leading researchers in this field and study on bystanders and their willingness to help. They published a book which outlined a widely accepted model for helping behavior in a 5 step process that people go through before helping, called The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? The five steps were: noticing the fact that someone is in trouble, determining if the person actually needs help, assuming personal responsibility (mostly happens with less bystanders), deciding what action to take, actually taking action and weighing the pros and cons.

To help or not to help subsequent finding and recent application

what would happen if bystanders could communicate? Darley and Latané believe that the bystanders in close contact would be less likely to help than just individuals due to fear of embarrassment . They tested this by creating a fake interview for students where they would gather to fill questionnaires and suddenly there would be smoke arising. 55% of alone participants reported smoke while only 12% of the ones in the group reported smoke in the first 2 minutes. After 4 minutes, 75%  of the alone participants reported the smoke but no additional group participants reported smoke.  Another study to prove that fear of embarrassment plays a part in willingness to help people combined personality measures of shyness and fear of negative evaluation. Participants filled out scales to measure shyness and fear of negative evaluation, they were then given an opportunity to help a woman with 2 other people, participants were less likely to help with the 2 people with them. A study demonstrated the power of the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility in imaginations. The study led by a team of researchers including Darley found that imagining being in a group changed helping behavior. Participants were asked to donate money after imagining themselves being in a group; those participants donated significantly less money and felt less responsible than those who imagined being with only one other person. 

To help or not to help conclusion

Though these findings may seem negative about human behavior, however these studies deal with extremely specific situations in which people fail to help, people do help. The research by Darley and Latané was to encourage people to change their behavior and to help once they are aware of the bystander effect, in fact research demonstrated that those who are aware of the effect are more likely to help. 

Obey at any cost? intro

**Stanley Milgram** conducted this study to examine the idea of obedience to authority.The research study is very famous and well known. This study also sparked debates on whether humans should participate in psychological studies. He wanted to know scientifically how someone could cause harm to others just because they were ordered to do so, especially in scenarios like World War II. Milgram theorized that sometimes a person’s tendency to obey is greater than a person's ability to behave morally, ethically, and sympathetically. Milgram faced problems for having to reproduce this experiment in a laboratory experiment where a person was ordered to hurt another person.

Obey at any cost? Theoretical proposition

Milgram's theory proposes that one would hurt another person even if it goes against their beliefs, if ordered to do so.

Obey at any cost? Mehtod

the most ingenious part of this study was developing a way to test the power of obedience in a lab. Militants designed a fake shock generator with 30 switches, starting from 30 volts to 450 and were labeled on groups called "slight shock, moderate shock and danger: severe shock”. He wanted participants to give shocks to another person. The participants were male from the ages of 20 - 50. The experiment was advertised in papers and by mail for a study about memory at Yale University. They were given $30 per hour once accounted for inflation. There was also a fake participant and a fake experimenter. They were told the study was the effects of punishment on learning. Participants would draw names out of a rigged hat to see who would be a student and who would be a teacher, everytime the real participant would be the teacher and the fake one would be the student. The two selected would be taken to another room and the fake participant would be strapped to an electric chair with the real participant watching. The participant would ask them multiple choice questions and the fake participant would answer them with buttons labeled a, b or c. Everytime the student would get the wrong answer, the teacher would administer a shock and for every wrong answer the voltage level would be increased. As the questions would go on the fake participant would shout and say some pre recorded phrases explaining his discomfort. After reaching 300 volts, the fake participant would not answer any questions which would be recorded as an incorrect answer. Eventually every single participant would look to the experimenter for guidance who told them to proceed. The obedience of a participant was recorded by the level of shock at which a participant stopped. Those who stopped at a low point were deemed defiant and those who stopped at a high point were obedient. 

Obey at any cost? Results

Milgram asked a series of questions to Yale University senior psychology majors and colleagues to predict how the participants would do and how much they would obey in the experiment. 26 out of 40 went to the max while 14 disobeyed, the most shock value that at least every participant went to was 300, which is also the voltage level where the fake participant screamed to be let out. Many participants were stressed out and concerned about the fake participant’s well-being, one of those participants who walked on with a smile and confidence, was left stuttering and a nervous wreck. The reason that the participant obeyed the experimenter even though he had no real authority was due to the situation they were in and some reasons they gave were that since the experiment is being sponsored by Yale, they must be in good hands , and who were they to question such a great institution, the goals of the experiment appear to b  important , they should do their part, voluntarily came here and he has an obligation to the project, hey, it was just by chance that I'm the teacher and he's the learner and it could have just as easily been the other way around ; (e) they're paying me for this , I'd better do my job ; (f) I don' t know all that much about the rights of a psychologist and his participants , so I will yield t o his discretion on this; and they told u s both that the shocks are painful but not dangerous .

Obey at any cost? Significance of finding

Milgram's findings do still hold up today even when variables have changed, such as the setting and the gender of participants. He also did a series of experiments to see what limits and promote obedience, he found that if the student was not seen or heard, it would lead to the highest percentage of obedience. When the teacher and learner were in the same room and the participant had to force the learner's hand onto the shock plate the rate dropped significantly. The distance of the authority figure also influenced the participant, the closer the figure, the more obedient. There was also a test done where the teacher could pick any voltage, no one went higher than the 2nd switch.

Obey at any cost? criticism

Had effects on the area of ethical treatment of human participants. Critics said that the experiment created high levels of stress on participants and it may have had lasting effects. They also pointed out that the deception of what the experiment really was could've been hurtful to the participants. Another criticism said that due to the experiment taking place in a lab it could have affected the participants and the idea wouldn't have been carried out in the real world. Milgram responded to all the criticism by making the participants take a survey in which 84% were glad to be a part of the experiment and only 1% of the participants were not happy with the experiment, he also had a psychiatrist interview them and none had any long lasting effects. Responding to the criticism of how the experiment wasn't a reflection of the real world Milgram said “"A person who comes to the laboratory i s an active, choosing adult , capable  of accepting or rejecting the prescriptions for action addressed to him”

Obey at any cost? recent applications

**Thomas Blass** suggested the obedience rates have not changed significantly in the 40 years as of the 2000s. Milgram also did a study with execution teams of Louisiana state prison and found that  none were clinically depressed even though they have gone through so much trauma and death and that they deal with it by relying on religious beliefs, identification with their peer group, and their ability to diffuse responsibility. Others such as **Dave Wendler** tried to figure out a way to be able to ethically deceive participants, he suggested that there should be an increased level of informed consent which would tell participants that they may be deceived. 

Obey at any cost? Conclusion

Milgram’s experiment allowed us to learn how powerful the tendency to obey is.