Week 8 - Experimenter

Experimenter

Plot 

This film revolves around the true story of Stanley Milgram, an experimental psychologist who is famous for his Milgram experiment, where he tests subjects on their obedience to authority. We follow his life story and the effects of his controversial study on him. 

Stanley Milgram

In the beginning, we see Milgram, a social psychologist, conducting his famous obedience to authority experiment behind the scenes, where he is observing the participants and making accurate observational notes. His team, consisting of both the experimenter and a confederate rehearse the same script every time the experiment is run. 

His study aims to discover why the genocide and extermination camps by the Nazis would be possible, because on his own past experience. Even though the confederate sounded like he was in great pain, most of the participants didn't stop the experiment because the experimenter told them to. 

Many people who did not participate in the experiment believed that they would be different and that they would not go all the way in shocking the participants, but the results were controversial and surprising as almost all the participants went up to the highest voltage. 

"Participants who were in shock about their own actions."

Stigma

Psychologists

The stigma around psychologist is that we all work with people who face difficulties with mental health, which isn't true at all. In the movie, Milgram said that her daughter had to explain that her father was an experimental psychologist who conducts experiments, not someone who talks to people lying down. 

This stigma around psychologist indicates that we still have stigma around Psychology and mental health in general. We still need more understanding and exposure to the public to reduce this stigma. This way, prejudice and discrimination against those who have mental health issues can be reduced and we can have a peaceful and supportive society that seek to help each other out. 

Ethics

"Milgram explaining the nature of his experiment to his class."

Milgram used deception but calls it an illusion, for us, our Ethics Review Board (ERB) would still consider it as deception,as if he were upfront with his study, the results will definitely be skewed and unreliable. He is interesting in studying his participant's reactions, and no actual physical harm has been done. What was argued to be unethical was the plausible psychological shock done to the participants, though most participants were not harmed or traumatized, but actually glad to participate in the experiment.

"Milgram defending his experiment in front of his Ethics Board"

After labeling Milgram's experiment as unethical, people started labeling Milgram himself as an unethical experimenter. The news and many people who do not know about the actual study contort the facts and spread rumors of what kind of person Milgram is. This reminds us to not label the person, because a person's behavior is not the person. If we label someone, we won't be able to experience him as a whole.

When Milgram informed the class about the assassination of President Kennedy, they believed it to be one of his experiments. This is how stigma may rob and blind us of the truth, and why we should experience people as they are. 

Rosenhan Experiment

This brings us to the Rosenhan experiment where confederates applied to psychiatric hospitals by acting that they have been hearing voices, and were told to act normal after a certain time frame and tell doctors that they were fine. The controversial results were that doctors did not believe them, but the actual patients in the ward were the ones who recognized that they were fake patients. 

Again, this brings about the topic of labeling instead of experiencing the person as he or she is. It is important to note that with correct labeling, it may actually benefit the patient and future patients as it makes the challenge easier to solve as they have a reference, but with improper labeling, it may actually do more harm than good.

So what we can do is to train professionals who are able to take the proper steps in diagnosing and labeling the symptoms instead of the patient, as the patient is not his symptoms.

Bonus: Social Experiment 

The bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility happens in the presence of others. What happens if an isolated individual was faced with a situation what is unjust? Similar to the elevator conformity scene from Candid TV, what happens if we implant a scenario where sexism, racism, harassment or bullying happens in an elevator and see what an individual (the actual subject studied) does? 

Would things be different because they are in an enclosed space with no where to run? 

What if another confederate was added, a stranger to the person and the confederate acted as though nothing had happened?

What if the confederate took action and spoke up against the unjust?

What if instead of a confederate they had someone they care about with them in the elevator? A friend, a loved one, their child, their parent? 

How different would they behave?