As an undergraduate taking psychology classes, I was induced by raw money to be a subject in non-invasive experiments. I quickly learned to ignore or half listen to the tester's explanations; I figured they were not going to tell me the _real_ reason for the trials. Sometimes they admitted as much, sometimes they went through the charade.
I don't know what the IRB would say to that today, but I wasn't injured in any of them.
Jay
On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:23:33 PM, Ken Masters wrote:
> Hi All
>
> In a similar vein, what is it called when the subjects are put through a
> trial of some sort, and the real reason and purpose for the experiment
> is withheld from the subjects completely? I'm thinking of something
> like Stanley Milgram's "pain" experiments. Subjects believed that they
> were acting as a "teacher," inflicting pain on a third person (a
> "learner") through electric shock when the "learner" gave incorrect
> answers to questions posed by the person running the experiment But
> actually, the participants themselves were the subjects of an
> experiments to see how far they would go in their obedience to
> authority. (The "learner" was not actually receiving any shocks, but
> was using recoded sounds, and would add to the general confusion by
> banging on the wall).
>
>
> Regards
>
> Ken
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: 262.634.9100
Fax: 262.681.1133
email: [log in to unmask]
web: www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|