A confounding variable (or an extraneous variable) is an outside influence, separate from the independent variable, that changes the outcome/effect of the dependent variable. Researchers (usually) cannot control confounding variables; consequently, it is possible that confounding variables may impact research in ways the researcher desires, or even in ways that are undesired. Confounding variables majorly impact experimental conditions and outcomes, yet it is almost impossible to prevent them.
Although Milgram’s studies were controlled to prevent confounding variables, some were still present during the study. Many participants did not believe the “learner” was actually getting shocked. This can be justified as a confounding variable because
of factors contributed rather than an overriding cause. As a result, it is fair to
The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on learning. The learner was strapped into a chair that resembles a miniature electric chair, and was told he would have to learn a small list of word pairs. For each incorrect answer he would be given electric shocks of increasing intensity ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The experimenter informed the teacher's job was to administer the shocks. The...
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
Milgram wielded with 40 males that were between the age ranges of 20 through 50. 15 men out of the 40 that were the subjects of this study were either skilled or unskilled workers, 16 men were white-collar sales or business men, and 9 were professional men. These subjects were preferred by newspaper ads and direct-mail application querying for the subjects to be rewarded participants for this study. With this research, Milgram uses two participants that was a confederate and an actor who looked authoritative. As each participant participated in the experiment, each one was to draw pieces of paper from a hat that determined if they were either a teacher or a learner. Yet, the drawing was manipulated so that the subject would become a teacher and the associate was the learner. The learner was destitute to a chair and wired up with electrodes that was attached to the shock generator in the adjacent room. There were questions that were proposed to the learner and for every answer that was wrong, the subject was to conduct an electric shock. For each wrong answer that was given, the subject was to increase the level of shock on the generator. Withal, the results of this research was that every participant continued to at least the level of 300-volt. Yet, 14 participants eluded orders to be free before reaching the maximum voltage and 65% pursued the experimenter’s commands and reached to the top of
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
Stanley Milgram selected 40 college participants aged 20-50 to take part in the experiment at Yale University. Milgram says, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measureable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim” (632). Although the 40 men or women thought that they were in a drawing to see who would be the “teacher” and the “learner,” the drawing was fixed. The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually being shocked, the teachers believed t...
In the following essay I will be looking into the study conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on a small child known as ‘Little Albert’. The experiment was an adaptation of earlier studies on classical conditioning of stimulus response, one most common by Ivan Pavlov, depicting the conditioning of stimulus response in dogs. Watson and Rayner aimed to teach Albert to become fearful of a placid white rat, via the use of stimulus associations, testing Pavlov’s earlier theory of classical conditioning.
In Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram explains his own study on the effects authority has on levels of obedience. Milgram designed the experiment in order to recognize the subjects as “teachers,” and actors as “learners,” with another actor posing as an "experimenter.” (Milgram 78). Milgram required the teacher to read a list of word pairs to a learner and to test their remembrance afterward (78). As Milgram explains in his essay, each time the learner answers incorrectly, the teacher is required by the experimenter to flip a switch on an electric shock generator. The author illustrates that the experimenter implies that the teacher is electrically shocking the learner; however, no shocks are actually inflicted. Diana Baumrind
One of the other ways that psychological conditioning is misused is when the babies are shocked to be made to not like flowers and books. “They’ll grow up with what the psychologists ...
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Psychology. (2nd ed., p. 600). New York: Worth Pub.
In this case study we can see a negative way classical conditioning occurred. During recess firecrackers went off near school, throwing the students to the group in fear. “Jim had stared in amazement at the yard of students lying on the ground, instinctively trying to protect themselves.” (Colbert, p. 52)This involuntary response was a natural instinct for the students because of the neighborhood they lived in. Gunfire was a regular occurrence, and the firecrackers resembled the sound of a gunshot. “To some degree, learners’ behaviors are influenced by the objects and events they are currently encountering.” (Ormrod ,p. 58)Specific events throughout your life can lead to certain behaviors. In this case study we saw that the gunfire they have heard causes them to fall to the ground. Classical conditioning had a negative effect on these
In this example, a possible moderator is the child’s IQ. A child’s inherited IQ could change the relationship between the parent to child reading rate (independent variable) to the faster cognitive development (dependent variable). The child with a high IQ is likely to show faster cognitive development, although their parents do not read to them, whereas the child with a low IQ is likely to show slower cognitive development, even if the parents read to
In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because; whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks were increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on t...
In addition to theories causality, the quality of the empirical test is important. A theory that doesn’t measure the independent and dependent variables correctly could cause inadequate methodological quality. Also, it could cause issues with hypothesising. Furthermore, if the theory doesn’t collect enough data from a related, large and diverse sample then the theory is insufficient. All of these pieces correlate to contribute to a sufficient empirical test. For example, if a theory suggests all men who grow up in a violent house hold will commit violent acts in the future, but doesn’t collect data from a large enough population or includes women in the study then their empirical testing could be insignificant, which would lead to the theory not being empirically valid.
It is harder to go against or make an objection about unethical aspect of the experiment when people do not know each other well. Therefore, rather than strongly opposing and criticizing the instructor 's unethical decision, people just behaved according to the orders. Thirdly, the participants regarded the instructor as a professional researcher (Blass, 2009, p113). Therefore, they believed in the instructor 's decision to do so and obeyed the given instruction. Since Milgram or the instructor was a more intelligent person than most of the people, the participants would have imagined that there would be a specific reason why he held this experiment. Therefore the participants tried to understand the instructor 's intention and respected his choice. Or on the other hand, the participants were ignorant about the experiment, since they were not the one getting the consequent electric shocks. Lastly, the electric shocks were explained to the participants to be painful, but not detrimental (Griggs & Whitehead, 2015, p316). Thus these factors affected the participants to rely more on the instructor 's orders and obey what was told them to