A few years ago, in one experiment in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects for their willingness to obey instructions given by a "leader" in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal dislike of the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer "teacher-subject" that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to learn. The teacher-subjects were placed before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from "15 volts of electricity (slight shock)" to "450 volts (danger -- severe shock)" in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered. The supposed "pupil" was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to pretend to receive the shocks by giving out cries and screams. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for. As the experiment unfolded, the "pupil" would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects _ administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to carry on with the experiment and that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion  against the rules and conditions of the experiment. Before carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that basically all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that "most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts" and only a small percentage of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts. What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this result? One might firstly argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct  that was activated by the experiment. A modem sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct was of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, finally finding its way into our genetic make-up. Another explanation is to see the teacher-subjects' actions as a result of the social context in which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out, "Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is good and useful to society -- the pursuit of scientific troth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy  and gains trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation  appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting". Here we have two different explanations. The problem for us is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more reasonable. This is the problem of modern sociobiology -- to discover how hard-wired genetic programming decides the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with explaining the biological basis of all behaviour. Which of the following is right about the experiment?
The actor's performance was vital to its success. Its subjects were informed of its real purpose beforehand. The electrical shock made the "pupil" give more wrong answers. Its subjects were convinced of the effects of punishment on ability to learn.
Question: A few years ago, in one experiment in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects for their willingness to obey instructions given by a "leader" in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal dislike of the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer "teacher-subject" that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to learn. The teacher-subjects were placed before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from "15 volts of electricity (slight shock)" to "450 volts (danger -- severe shock)" in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered. The supposed "pupil" was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to pretend to receive the shocks by giving out cries and screams. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for. As the experiment unfolded, the "pupil" would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects _ administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to carry on with the experiment and that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion  against the rules and conditions of the experiment. Before carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that basically all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that "most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts" and only a small percentage of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts. What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this result? One might firstly argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct  that was activated by the experiment. A modem sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct was of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, finally finding its way into our genetic make-up. Another explanation is to see the teacher-subjects' actions as a result of the social context in which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out, "Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is good and useful to society -- the pursuit of scientific troth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy  and gains trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation  appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting". Here we have two different explanations. The problem for us is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more reasonable. This is the problem of modern sociobiology -- to discover how hard-wired genetic programming decides the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with explaining the biological basis of all behaviour. Which of the following is right about the experiment?
A. The actor's performance was vital to its success.
B. Its subjects were informed of its real purpose beforehand.
C. The electrical shock made the "pupil" give more wrong answers.
D. Its subjects were convinced of the effects of punishment on ability to learn.
Answer: