John Watson – Little Albert (SLT/Classical conditioning) |
[A] |
Investigating the classical conditioning method. |
[P] |
- A baby, under his parent’s consent, was asked to participate in the classical conditioning experiment.
- Experimenter exposed Little Albert to a series of white fluffy objects e.g. rats, white rabbits, santa masks etc. as a baseline test.
- Little Albert showed neutral responses to these stimuli.
- Little Albert was then placed into a room with some lab rats, his response was neutral.
- He started playing with the lab rats and did not show any fear.
- Experimenters then created a loud noise by hitting a metal bar whenever Little Albert touched the rats, Little Albert showed fear.
|
[F] |
- After several pairing of the stimulus, Little Albert showed signs of distress and started crying whenever he saw the lab rats.
|
[C] |
- Same fear was displayed when other white fluffy objects were shown to Little Albert.
- Classical conditioning was successful.
|
[E] |
- Ecological validity: Low, lab environment.
- Culture bias: Babies are too young to have any cultural influence.
- Immoral to evoke fear under lab conditions, unless participants approves to be purposely horrified otherwise.
- Caused permanent unnecessary mental harm and distress.
- Welfare of the human participant must always be the paramount consideration of any experiments.
|
Philip Zimbardo – Stanford Prison Experiment (Conformity/SIT) |
[A] |
Prove that situational factors can affect behaviour. |
[P] |
- 22 male subjects were selected through personality assessment based on their mental stability, maturity and social ability.
- Randomly assigned the role of either prisoner or warden.
- "Prisoners"
- Signed a consent document that some of their human rights will be suspended for the experiment and that all subjects would receive $15 a day up to 2 weeks.
- "Arrested" by surprise by real police from their house, taken to a real police station for standard procedures.
- Driven blindfolded to a prison (set, not a real prison) where they were stripped naked, delouse, and dressed in prisoner uniform.
- Stayed in the prison for 24 hours a day, followed a schedule of work, rest and meal.
- "Wardens"
- Put on warden costumes with the correct props. They worked 8 hours a day, and were given no specific instructions.
- Asked to keep a reasonable degree of order and were prohibited against any means of physical violence.
|
[F] |
- Experiment was terminated in 6 days, instead of the intended 14 days due to abnormal reactions shown by both prisoners and wardens.
- "Prisoners"
- Displayed passivity and dependence. Half the prisoners showed signs of depression, crying, fits of rage, acute anxiety.
- Due to this reason, they were released early.
- All but two prisoners would forfeit the money if they could be released early.
- Experimenters proposed that these behaviours were results of the loss of personal identity, dependency and learned helplessness.
- "Wardens"
- Displayed huge enjoyment of power at their disposal, leading towards abusive use of power, dehumanizing the prisoners.
- Some wardens worked extra time with no extra pay and were disappointed that the experiment was over.
- They punished the prisoners for no apparent justifications (abusive use of power).
- Not all wardens displayed aggression, but none opposed other’s use of it.
|
[C] |
- The situation (prison environment) affected all participant’s behaviour.
- Arguable that the environment of a prison is what causes prisoners to act violently.
- Supports SIT
- Displayed the categorisation and development of identity in both groups.
|
[E] |
- Ecological validity: Low, lab environment, overt observation.
- Prohibition of physical violence limited the generalising ability of the experiment.
- Experimenters argue that…
- The functional equivalent of the prison system (setting, costumes etc.) were implemented.
- Reactions and behaviours of the subjects exceeded the level of “role play”.
- Calling each other by ID number in private, wardens showed aggression even when they thought they were not being watched.
- Reliability: Experiment was not repeated until years after, subjects did not act as predicted.
- Culture bias: only studied subjects from the US.
- Ethical considerations and issues.
- Participants signed consent forms, but they had no clear idea of the procedure of the experiment.
- Induced aggression in subjects.
- Created discrimination and violence.
- Gender bias: only male subjects were used.
|
Stanley Milgram – Study On Obedience (Compliance) |
[A] |
Investigating the effect of authority on compliance and obedience. |
[P] |
- Subjects were 40 males, age range from 20 to 50, found through newspaper advert.
- Subjects were led to believe that the experiment was investigating the effect of punishment on learning.
- They were given the role of the “teacher” through a fixed lottery.
- They saw the learner (which is an actor) in real life, strapped to a chair connected with an electrode.
- The experimenter took the subject to another room and told them to apply an electric shock by pressing the button whenever the learner gets a question wrong.
- The experimenter wore a grey lab coat.
- The “teacher” was given a test shock of 45 volts.
- At certain voltages, different vocal feedback was given through a recorded system. After 315 volts, no response was given.
|
[F] |
- 65% of the subjects continued on to the maximum 450 volts.
- No one stopped before 300 volts.
- Subjects were observed to show signs of stress (e.g. sweat, tremble, biting their lips).
|
[C] |
- Subjects displayed compliance because of the authority figure (the experimenter in the grey lab coat).
- Compliance, not conformity. Because it is evident that the subjects did not internalise the idea of giving shock.
- When subjects were asked to electrocute a puppy, level of obedience increased.
|
[E] |
- Ecological validity: Low, lab environment.
- Culture bias: Unrepresentative sample, all subjects were from the US.
- Other researchers replicated the study in other countries.
- Findings can then be generalised.
- Caused distress in subjects.
- They were told “you have no choice but to carry on” but in actual fact subjects had the right to leave.
- Subjects were deceived to thinking that they were actually giving out electric shocks.
- They were then debriefed, and showed that the learner was unharmed.
- Gender bias: Only male subjects used initially. In later replicates, female subjects and “victim” were also used.
- When a female “victim” was used, level of obedience reduced.
|