Insert the question and explanation here a. As I researched I…. b. c. 3. Insert the question and explanation here a. As I researched I….
This is exactly what the Nazi troops or the Germans had to do to obey their higher power. The person conducting the experiment has interests to give orders to the teacher to conflict pain on the learner if the learner gets a wrong answer. This is exactly the same orders Hitler would give to his soldiers to hurt or exterminate the Jews. Even is the teacher didn’t want to hurt the learner, the person conducting the experiment would tell the teacher he is not held responsible to the wrong doing on the learner. With that the teachers would proceed.
2. An example from your text to support that element. 3. Your commentary that pulls them both together. (Do this, X2 or X3).
The teacher was told that the object of the experiment was to study the effects of punishment on learning. They are also told that their role in the experiment was to read word lists to the learner and the learner must remember the second word from a list of word pairs they had read earlier. If the learner got the answer wrong, then the teacher was told to administer shocks, for each answer that the learner got wrong, and the shocks had to increase in intensity. The teacher is unaware of the fact that the learner is actually an actor, and receives no shock. The experiments, involving the Undergrad students from Yale, resulted in 60
Their focus is on the control factors that prevent people from committing criminal or delinquent acts (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Nye, 1958; Reckless, 1967; Reiss, 1951; and Sykes & Matza, 1957). People obey the law because they are responding to appropriate social controls. People who violate the law do so because their social controls are not working or their bonds to law-abiding people have been broken or were never developed (Reiss, 1951). The question becomes not how to prevent criminal behavior, but how to get people to engage in law-abiding behavior. This paper examines a variety of approaches by social control theorists.
The experimenter explained that the learner would be asked a series of questions and if he answers incorrectly, the teacher will administer an electric shock. Gretchen Brandt is the first of several subjects to undergo the experiment, and her reaction the learner’s pain was similar to what was predicted before the study began. She remained calm, composed, and was firm in her decision to disobey the experimenters orders. According to Milgram, this was the reaction he expected from almost all the participants. He collected predictions about the outcome of the experiments from a diverse group of people and most predicted that the subjects would not be obedient, but they were wrong.
Whenever the pupil answered incorrectly, the teacher was instructed to throw one of the switches, starting at the lowest voltage and progressing to the higher voltages. The pupil, of course, was not actually receiving shocks, but he would act out preplanned mistakes and feign pain upon receiving the "shocks." About midway through the series of switches, the "pupil" would complain loudly that he wanted to stop, kick the wall, and scream. At the highest levels of shock the pupil would remain silent. All the while, the experimenter, wearing a white lab coat and carrying a clipboard, would instruct the teacher to continue with the "learning experiment."
It helped to understand his faulty behaviors and decision making and to hopefully take a step toward the right path of correcting such irrational thought processes. It gives the treatment team the ability to begin to uncover the reasons that are behind the outwardly manifested behaviors. There are previous studies who have analyzed sexual offender behavior using a CBT approach. Using the CBT approach for future treatment with Bradley will enable the treatment team to specifically look into how Bradley feels his risk factors are affecting him. This treatment plan focuses on taking negative thinking patterns and inserting positive thinking patterns in their place.
Probably” was an experiment that actually lead to people electrocuting a poor innocent man. In the late seventy’s Stanley Milgram decided to do an experiment which would tell the difference in whom was more obedient Americans or Germans. This experiment was held in Yale University. There were two players the old man around his fifties and an outside person. The outsider would strap the old man down to an electric chair and if he got any questions wrong he would electrocute him.
Lots were apparently drawn, but it was arranged that in each case the volunteer would be the teacher. Teacher and learner were then taken to a room where the learner was strapped into a chair and electrodes fixed to his wrists. The volunteer/teacher was told that the punishment to be applied was electric shock, and that these shocks could be extremely painful, although they would cause no permanent damage. Next the volunteer/teacher was taken to his own room where he was given his instructions; every time the learner made a mistake, he was to give an increasingly high electric shock by way of punishment. The intensity of these shocks - as displayed on a 'shock generator' - ranged from 15V to 450V.