For every incorrect answer the 'teacher' had to increase the level of shock. Some participants refused at a certain point to continue, even when the scientist tried to convince them not to stop. But the majority went all the way. The participants did not know that both, the fake scientist and the 'learner', were members of Milgram's team and that the whole situation was staged. Variations in Milgram's experiment * Milgram replaced the scientist by a regular guy in plain clothes.
If he recites the words incorrectly the teacher has to administer a shock to the learner. The more words that the learner forgets the shock voltage is raised. Although the learner is an actor the teachers are not aware of this, believing they are shocking a man with deadly voltage. Milgram’s objective is to see if the subjects will continue shocking as the voltage is raised. In his article he hypothesizes, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim” (Milgram63).
Each time the learner is wrong the shock will get stronger. In reality, the learner receives no shock because he is just pretending to be in pain so the teachers will stop. In most cases the teachers continues to increase the voltage up to 450 volts to the learner even though the learner refuses the answer the question. Milgram's experiment was set up to determine how people in a psychology laboratory would react to authority. Since more than half of the subjects in the first experiment administered the shock to the end,
The “teacher” would receive orders from the “experimenter” to give an electric shock to the “learner” after every question they got incorrect and the “experimenter” would demand the “teacher” to up the voltage after every mistake. The “teacher” could either obey the orders given by the “experimenter”, or refuse to continue in the experiment. In conducting this test, it became evident that people had no trouble obeying a higher authority, particularly when told they would not be held responsible for the fate of the subject. Obedience tends to increase with the prestige of the authority figure. Since the study was done by an undergraduate research assistant posing as a Yale professor, the participants were definitely more willing to comply with the orders they were given because they felt more obligated to impress and seek recognition
Shawna McAnally Professor Spencer English 101-E102 4 September 2012 The Perils of Obedience In the article “ The Perils of Obedience”, written in 1963, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, explains the experiments he conducted to see how people would react when they would inflict pain on another individual. Obedience can be somewhat of a problem for people, when it comes to obeying a higher authority. The point of Milgram conducting these experiments was to show that obedience is stronger than moral and ethical conduct. The experiment he set up was to test human behavior on how one would react to obedience. Milgram’s experiment was taking two individuals – a teacher and a learner- and he would see how much the teacher would inflict pain upon the learner simply because he was following orders.
Milgram’s experiment tested how much pain people were willing to inflict upon others, simply because they were ordered to do so by an authority figure. In this behavioral study of obedience, the dependent variable was the number of shocks participants was willing to administer, thus illustrating to Milgram their level of conformity. The more shocks they administered, the higher the conformity level. The independent variable, which was tested through replications and variations of the experiment, was the prestige of the setting, proximity of learner and experimenter to the participant, and the gender of participants. Milgram set up his experiment at Yale University, in a lab setting.
Professor Dan Rebellato states that: “we laugh at something because we feel superior to it”. This is valid as the audience laugh at Frank not understanding the joke. However, we may also laugh at Rita not understanding Frank’s references. People in the audience may understand Frank’s references if read well which would be typical of people who attend the theatre. Andrew Edwards, a set designer for a production of ‘Educating Rita’ claimed that: ‘a lot of
The comic part about this movie was the laughter and jokes they said throughout the whole movie. The tragic part was about the two characters sad past which grabbed hold of the audience hearts. Each tragic and comic part helped the audience relate to the characters and made them interact by laughing or crying.
Regardless of the outcome, Weisenfeld becomes disgruntled and exposes how students attempt to manipulate and take advantage of teachers by asking, demanding, and using stories of woe in order to convince teachers to issue higher grades. If a student fails, should he or she not be able to accept the grades they are given, rather than fight for a grade that did not reflect their work? Instinctively students should know what grade he or she will receive at the end of the course. Most teachers and professors offer students several methods of reviewing how well they are currently doing in class. A student should never act dumbfounded by how poorly their final grades turned out to be considering the amount of information provided by the instructor in order to help aid the student in time of need.
Again, this word laughing is repeated throughout the scene. However, it is also punctuated with other words such as, ‘terrified’, ‘crying’, ‘stubbed out cigarettes’, ‘punch him’, ‘pegged a stone’. His more a follower than his own person so you just need to nod to what other people say but at the same time become more aware of what is actually has happened and the effects its had on yourself, he comes a lot more wary and conscious throughout the play. * A very different character that I played in DNA is Cathy, she is shown to have no remorse about the group's actions. She finds the situation ‘exciting’ and ‘better than ordinary life’ (p16).