One sign of tension was the regular occur-rence of nervous laughing fits. Fou
Did the experimenters know that laughing fits was a common response to stress? If not, were they all calm about it? In fact, if no experimenter reacted strongly to the serious responses of the subjects, they are similarly subjects of obedience--obeying the PI and harming the subjects....
The learner's pounding is repeated after the315-volt shock is administered; afterwards he is notheard from, nor do his answers reappear on thefour-way signal box
I were a subject, I would be shocked if no one went to check on/rescue the learner since he gave no sign of any response after being electrically shocked (he could have fainted!) Were no subjects suspicious about the validity of the learner when the experimenters are all so calm?
If the subject refused to obey the experi-menter after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated.The experimenter's tone of voice was at all timesfirm, but not impolite. The s
I wonder how "firm but not impolite" were the experimenters actually? Would their demand characteristics somehow influence the participants subtly?
ubject maybe seeking an opportunity to have contact with, benoticed by, and perhaps confide in a person with psy-chological training.
I do not understand this point. Subjects cannot have any contact with the experimenter other than what is necessary for the experiment....
t where the experimentalconditions expose the subject to loss of dignity, oroffer him nothing of value, then the experimenter isobliged to consider the reasons why the subject volun-teered and to reward him accordingl
This is a little paradoxical. The subjects do not know the goal of the research when they volunteer, and therefore they come for the same reasons as they go to any experiment. Taking into account of that does not change the pain the experiment might cause; and increasing the reward to counterbalance the pain might lead to coercion, which in Milgram's case might cause the subjects to participate till the end.
eed such a rationale mightsuffice to justify the means used to achieve his end ifthat end were of inestimable value to humanity orwere not itself transformed by the means by which itwas attained.
herefore, the laboratory is not the placeto study degree of obedience or suggestibility, as afunction of a particular experimental condition, sincethe base line for these phenomena as found in the labo-ratory is probably much higher than in most othersettings
This reminds me of Mook's argument against the criticisms of external validity. Milgram was testing whether obedience can happen, instead of will happen in the real world. Besides, the lab setting does not increase the subjects tendency to obey any more than in a military setting--one of the most hierarchical systems in the real world. Lab in fact simplifies the environment; if people will obey when their life and possessions are not threatened, it gives more validity to the fact that they will obey in a real life setting where disobedience often involves some kind of economic/social loss.