1.5: Ethical considerations

Question 1

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had what suspended after his research was published?

Answer 1

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published

Question 2

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
His work though was eventually ruled what?

Answer 2

Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable

Question 3

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won what for it?

Answer 3

Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won a major award for it

Question 4

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won a major award for it.
Maybe what upset people was not the abuse of ethics, but the upsetting results that went against what?

Answer 4

Maybe what upset people was not the abuse of ethics, but the upsetting results that went against the accepted ideas of:

1. Free will
2. Personal responsibility for one’s behaviour

Question 5

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won a major award for it.
Maybe what upset people was not the abuse of ethics, but the upsetting results that went against the accepted ideas of free will and personal responsibility for one’s behaviour.
It was the work of Milgram and similar psychologists, like who, that helped to identify what?

Answer 5

It was the work of Milgram and similar psychologists, like Asch, that helped to identify the ethical issues that psychologists must consider when:
1. Planning
2. Conducting
research

Question 6

Milgram’s study raised several ethical issues and indeed Milgram had his membership of the American Psychological Association (APA) suspended after his research was published.
Milgram’s work though was eventually ruled ethically acceptable and he won a major award for it.
Maybe what upset people was not the abuse of ethics, but the upsetting results that went against the accepted ideas of free will and personal responsibility for one’s behaviour.
It was the work of Milgram and similar psychologists, like Asch, that helped to identify the ethical issues that psychologists must consider when planning and conducting research.
Without these studies of social influence, there would not be what?

Answer 6

Without these studies of social influence, there would not be ethical:

1. Codes
2. Guidelines

Question 7

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to what?

Answer 7

Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress

Question 8

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by what?

Answer 8

Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited

Question 9

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had what?

Answer 9

3 participants had seizures

Question 10

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had what?

Answer 10

Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved

Question 11

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were what?

Answer 11

80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study

Question 12

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had what?

Answer 12

74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves

Question 13

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met who?

Answer 13

A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner

Question 14

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received what?

Answer 14

A:

1. Thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner
2. Year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments

Question 15

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of what?

Answer 15

Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage

Question 16

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by what?

Answer 16

Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis

Question 17

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where what?

Answer 17

Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the:
1. Short-term damage (the stress reactions)
is outweighed by
2. Lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained

Question 18

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, who claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested how many participants) didn’t always occur?

Answer 18

Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur

Question 19

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about what?

Answer 19

Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work

Question 20

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might do what?

Answer 20

Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results

Question 21

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to do what directly after the experiment ended?

Answer 21

Milgram believed that:

1. A debriefing might confound his results
2. This was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended

Question 22

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Who said that it was impossible to give what?

Answer 22

Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing

Question 23

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of doing what?

Answer 23

Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’:

1. Rights
2. Feelings

Question 24

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
What was Milgram’s response to this?

Answer 24

Milgram’s response to this was that the:

1. Study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected
2. Subjects could have left at any time

Question 25

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that what?

Answer 25

Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected

Question 26

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected.
In fact, Milgram was surprised by what?

Answer 26

In fact, Milgram was surprised by the high obedience rate

Question 27

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected.
In fact, Milgram was surprised by the high obedience rate.
Prior to the experiment, Milgram did what?

Answer 27

Prior to the experiment, Milgram asked 40 psychiatrists what percentage of people would obey up to 450 volts

Question 28

Psychological harm:
For:
Milgram is accused of exposing his participants to severe stress, which is supported by the extreme physical reactions many participants exhibited.
3 participants had seizures.
Against:
Only 2% of participants had any regrets about being involved.
80% of participants said that they were glad they had participated in the study.
74% of participants thought that they had learnt something useful about themselves.
A thorough debriefing was carried out where participants met the unharmed learner and a year later, all 40 participants received psychiatric assessments.
Not even one participant showed signs of long-term damage.
Therefore, Milgram’s study can be justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, where the short-term damage (the stress reactions) is outweighed by the lack of long-term damage and the valuable results obtained.
For:
However, Perry (2012) claims that debriefing of subsequent participants (Milgram eventually tested nearly 3,000 participants) didn’t always occur, because Milgram was worried about news of the study becoming common knowledge before he finished his work.
Milgram believed that a debriefing might confound his results and that this was enough of a reason to deny debriefing directly after the experiment ended.
Baumrind (1964) said that it was impossible to give an adequate debriefing.
Baumrind said that the study was unethical, because of the deception and potential harm and Baumrind also accused Milgram of abusing his participants’ rights and feelings.
Against:
Milgram’s response to this was that the study didn’t intend to cause harm - the results were unexpected and the subjects could have left at any time.
Baumrind’s criticism assumes that the experimental outcome was expected.
In fact, Milgram was surprised by the high obedience rate.
Prior to the experiment, Milgram asked 40 psychiatrists what percentage of people would obey up to 450 volts.
What was their prediction?

Answer 28

Their prediction was only 1% of the participants

Question 29

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with what?

Answer 29

Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with:

1. Memory
2. Learning

Question 30

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after what were the electric shocks mentioned?

Answer 30

Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned

Question 31

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, who was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks?

Answer 31

As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks

Question 32

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks and the researcher, who, was also what?

Answer 32

As well as this:

1. Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks
2. The researcher, Mr Williams, was also a confederate

Question 33

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks and the researcher, Mr Williams, was also a confederate.
Therefore, participants could not give what?

Answer 33

Therefore, participants could not give informed consent

Question 34

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks and the researcher, Mr Williams, was also a confederate.
Therefore, participants could not give informed consent, because they volunteered without knowing what?

Answer 34

Therefore, participants could not give informed consent, because they volunteered without knowing the true:
1. Purpose
Or,
2. Procedure

Question 35

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks and the researcher, Mr Williams, was also a confederate.
Therefore, participants could not give informed consent, because they volunteered without knowing the true purpose or procedure.
Against:
Milgram defended his use of deception by doing what?

Answer 35

Milgram defended his use of deception by debriefing his participants

Question 36

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks and the researcher, Mr Williams, was also a confederate.
Therefore, participants could not give informed consent, because they volunteered without knowing the true purpose or procedure.
Against:
Milgram defended his use of deception by debriefing his participants.
Also, deception was necessary if participants were to do what?

Answer 36

Also, deception was necessary if participants were to behave realistically

Question 37

Deception/informed consent:
For:
Milgram did deceive his participants, because he said that the study was concerned with memory and learning.
Only after volunteers had agreed to take part were the electric shocks mentioned.
As well as this, Mr Wallace was an actor who never actually received any electric shocks and the researcher, Mr Williams, was also a confederate.
Therefore, participants could not give informed consent, because they volunteered without knowing the true purpose or procedure.
Against:
Milgram defended his use of deception by debriefing his participants.
Also, deception was necessary if participants were to behave realistically - the participants had to believe they were real shocks, otherwise the results what?

Answer 37

Also, deception was necessary if participants were to behave realistically - the participants had to believe they were real shocks, otherwise the results could not be generalised to real-life situations

Question 38

The right to withdraw:
For:
No what was given to the participants before the study started?

Answer 38

No explicit right to withdraw was given to the participants before the study started

Question 39

The right to withdraw:
For:
No explicit right to withdraw was given to the participants before the study started and attempts to withdraw were met with what?

Answer 39

1. No explicit right to withdraw was given to the participants before the study started
2. Attempts to withdraw were met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue

Question 40

The right to withdraw:
For:
No explicit right to withdraw was given to the participants before the study started and attempts to withdraw were met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue.
Examples include what?

Answer 40

Examples include:

1. ‘Just continue please’
2. ‘Continue please’
3. ‘Go on’
4. ‘Go on please’
5. ‘The experiment requires you to continue’
6. ‘We must continue’

Question 41

The right to withdraw:
For:
No explicit right to withdraw was given to the participants before the study started and attempts to withdraw were met with verbal prods that encouraged them to continue.
Against:
Milgram argued that participants did have the right to withdraw, because what?

Answer 41

Milgram argued that participants did have the right to withdraw, because 35% of the participants:

1. Exercised this option
2. Refused to carry on

Question 42

Inducement to take part:
For:
The advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid how much each for taking part (plus what)?

Answer 42

The advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare)

Question 43

Inducement to take part:
For:
The advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants believe that they what?

Answer 43

The advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study

Question 44

Inducement to take part:
For:
The newspaper advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study, as in give the shocks in order to do what?

Answer 44

The newspaper advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study, as in give the shocks in order to receive the money

Question 45

Inducement to take part:
For:
The newspaper advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study, as in give the shocks in order to receive the money.
The participants might’ve felt what to carry on with the experiment, even if they didn’t want to?

Answer 45

The participants might’ve felt obliged to carry on with the experiment, even if they didn’t want to

Question 46

Inducement to take part:
For:
The newspaper advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study, as in give the shocks in order to receive the money.
The participants might’ve felt obliged to carry on with the experiment, even if they didn’t want to and therefore might’ve performed what that they wouldnt have normally?

Answer 46

The participants:

1. Might’ve felt obliged to carry on with the experiment, even if they didn’t want to
2. Therefore might’ve performed negative actions that they wouldn’t have normally

Question 47

Inducement to take part:
For:
The newspaper advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study, as in give the shocks in order to receive the money.
The participants might’ve felt obliged to carry on with the experiment, even if they didn’t want to and therefore might’ve performed negative actions that they wouldn’t have normally.
Against:
The advert also stated that money would be paid when?

Answer 47

The advert also stated that money would be paid upon arrival at the laboratory

Question 48

Inducement to take part:
For:
The newspaper advert asking for volunteers for the study stated that they would be paid $4 each for taking part (plus 50 cents car fare), which may have led participants to believe that they had to finish the study, as in give the shocks in order to receive the money.
The participants might’ve felt obliged to carry on with the experiment, even if they didn’t want to and therefore might’ve performed negative actions that they wouldn’t have normally.
Against:
The advert also stated that money would be paid upon arrival at the laboratory and no participant ever claimed that they thought they had to do what?

Answer 48

The advert also stated that money would be paid upon arrival at the laboratory and no participant ever claimed that they thought they had to obey to get paid