Moral Dilemmas - shocking social psychology

Summary

The transcript describes a scenario inspired by Stanley Milgram's famous 1960s experiment on obedience to authority. Participants, acting as research assistants, were asked to administer increasing electric shocks to a test subject for each wrong answer, reaching dangerous levels. Despite the subject's screams and lack of response, participants continued under the direction of an authority figure. The experiment demonstrated that most people, when following orders from authority, can suppress their own moral judgments, leading to alarming consequences. The takeaway: ordinary people may act against their values under pressure, reflecting the power of authority in shaping behavior.

Takeaways

• ⚡ The scenario describes a research assistant tasked with administering electric shocks to a test subject for wrong answers, starting at 15 volts and increasing up to 450 volts.
• 🧪 The experiment tests whether individuals would follow orders to administer shocks, despite hearing the subject’s screams.
• 🔊 As the shock levels increase, the subject’s reactions become more severe, with screams intensifying at higher voltages.
• 😰 The script poses the question of whether the participant would stop or continue based on instructions from an authority figure.
• 👨‍🔬 The authority figure, a scientist, encourages the participant to continue, emphasizing that they take full responsibility.
• 🚫 Despite apparent discomfort, most participants in the actual study continued to administer shocks, even when the subject stopped responding.
• 📜 This scenario is based on Stanley Milgram’s experiment from the 1960s, which explored obedience to authority.
• 🤯 The results showed that two-thirds of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts, despite visible distress from the subject.
• 📊 Milgram’s experiment demonstrated that ordinary people could follow orders to extremes, questioning their own moral code when under authority.
• 💡 The key lesson is that people's actions are often influenced more by the situation and authority figures than by their personal character.

Q & A

What is the role of the research assistant in the experiment described?

The research assistant's role is to administer an electric shock to the test subject every time they answer a question incorrectly.

What is the range of the electric shocks administered during the experiment?

The electric shocks start at 15 volts, described as 'tingly,' and can go up to a dangerous 450 volts.

How does the experiment escalate as more wrong answers are given?

With each incorrect answer, the voltage increases, and the subject's reactions grow more intense, from initial discomfort to screams, eventually leading to a point where the subject stops responding altogether.

What happens when the voltage reaches 195 volts?

At 195 volts, the shock is labeled as 'very strong,' and the subject’s reactions indicate serious distress, but the scientist insists the assistant must continue.

What is the assistant told by the scientist if they hesitate to continue administering shocks?

The scientist reminds the assistant of their agreement and asserts full responsibility for the consequences, urging them to continue.

What is the assistant’s dilemma when the subject stops responding after 300 volts?

When the subject stops responding after 300 volts, the assistant may want to stop to check on the subject’s well-being, but the scientist insists that the experiment continue.

What psychological experiment is this script based on?

The script is based on the Stanley Milgram experiment from the 1960s, which tested people's willingness to follow orders from an authority figure, even when those orders conflicted with their moral beliefs.

What were the results of Stanley Milgram’s experiment?

Two out of three participants in Milgram’s experiment went all the way to the maximum 450 volts, even though the subject was in extreme pain or unresponsive.

What does Stanley Milgram’s experiment reveal about human behavior?

Milgram’s experiment reveals that in certain situations, people are more likely to obey authority figures, even if it means acting against their own moral code, especially when responsibility is shifted to the authority.

What broader societal lesson can be drawn from this experiment?

The experiment suggests that while following rules is essential for social order, unquestioning obedience to authority can lead to harmful consequences when taken to extremes.