本文主要敘述人類行為和依從性的研究，儘管主要的複制研究都對人類的行為和依從性表示悲觀，但這項研究也引發了一些積極的因素。正如Miller(2009)所指出的，存在研究倫理和方法方面的擔憂。 Miller(2009)討論了Stanley和Burger的工作，並特別關注工作引起的倫理問題。這些方法上的考慮導致了合規研究未來變化的直接結果。本篇論文 代寫 價格文章由英國論文人EducationRen教育網整理，供大家參考閱讀。
In spite of the main replication studies that spell gloom for human behavior and compliance, there are some positive elements triggered from the research. There have been research ethics and methodological concerns as Miller (2009) argued. Miller (2009) discussed the work of Stanley and Burger, and specifically focuses on the ethical concern that the work raises. These methodological concerns led to the direct result of changes in the future of compliance studies.
Compliance studies could no longer ignore the visible discomfort that a participant felt or the truth and facts that were presented to them. Research and ethical guidelines in the case of compliance studies came to be restructured. Contemporary ethical guidelines came to be drawn better for such compliance studies and it would be interesting to investigate, if the research method was what had made something undoable like delivering a shock to someone, more doable. Yet another interesting point to assess in future research would be how collective voice of participants could have resisted the research.
The first study selected is that of Miller (2009). The study is focused more on the methodological and ethical issues for the participants. Milgram’s study has been argued more for the results that it produced. However, the ethical propriety of his research and the form of authoritative coercion he had on participants has also been a subject of high scrutiny. In setting off a trend towards understanding ethics for participants and voluntary consent among others, Miller argues that works of Milgram and Burger do not seem convincing enough.
Participants were exposed to intense stress and data was collected during this intense stress. He studies them revealed more insights on how participants’ stressful state contributed to compliance and Miller believes where the norm to have reversed with participants stating their vocal objection, it would have been possible that the experiment would not have been conducted at all. Would a collective voice offer more resistance to a voice of authority is an interesting consideration here, and this could be a focused more elaborate topic for future research.
The second study is a thesis work. In the thesis work, the researcher argues that such an experiment like Milgram was able to convert a participant into doing something that they would normally consider doable. Russell’s (2009) core argument is that ordinary people could become torturers when a bureaucratic setup, the one Milgram conducted his experiment in was created. Under the guidance of an authority type figure, with some amount of organizational pressure, it was possible that the participants are coerced into taking what is offered to them as a solution to a moral dilemma. This could perhaps offer a reasoning to understand what happened during the Nazi operations, Operation Barbarossa and Operation Reinhard from 1941 to 1944 according to the researcher Russell (2009). Now this understanding of the methodology used to trigger undoable actions could be a separate area of research in itself.