Slater Et Al 2006 - Not Compulsive Study

Question 1

Summary

Answer 1

-Study Called ~ ‘A virtual reprise of the Milgram obedience experiments’
-shows there’s deliberate replication but using different procedure

Question 2

Aim

Answer 2

-Replicate Milgram work in an ethical way
-find if experiments in virtual environment useful where it’s not possible to use direct experiments

Question 3

Procedure

Answer 3

-setting for study called immersive virtual environment
-main hypothesis-there would be stress if learner(virtual person)could be seen + heard then if learner communicated with participant(teacher) using text
-teacher volted learner if answer wrong
-2 conditions-1 ‘visible’ learner seen and heard, 2 ’hidden’ learner wasn’t seen or heard

Question 4

Results

Answer 4

-all shocks given in hidden condition but not visible
-23 in visible and 11 in hidden wanted to stop
-participant in visible talked to learner didn’t in hidden
-skin conductance measure if arousal-visible significantly higher arousal than hidden

Question 5

Conclusions

Answer 5

-giving shocks to virtual human stressful+caused more arousal in participant who could see+hear their protests
-participant reacted to visual human as if they were real
-if learner more distant obedience greater, in Milgram when experimenter in separate room+give orders over phone, obedience reduces-about distance
-match that in visible participant show more reluctance+more thought of withdrawing
-concluded using immersive virtual environment was a suitable way of replacing lab experiments , improved ethics

Question 6

Evaluation strengths

Answer 6

-ethics-slater avoided deception Milgram used.participant knew for certain no electric shocks given+knew there’s no harm done to learner
-much procedure replicated form Milgram meant some comparisons could be made such as effect of distance from ‘victim’

Question 7

Eval weaknesses

Answer 7

-participants put under pressure, study presented very seriously+lots of diff measures including skin-resistance testing. Distressed by learners own distress+given impression that what there doing was causing distress to ‘someone’ else, has ethical implications
-Participants complied but maybe not obedience, knew shocks given, could’ve continued cus they were putting up own discomfort for sake of scientific study, not same as blind obedience as studied by Milgram, maybe been complied to be polite