VIRTUAL REALITY AND MILGRAM
Slater et al (2006) performed a replication of Stanley Milgram's (1963) experiment on obedience using an "immersive virtual environment" (virtual reality). The Learner, rather than being a confederate of the experimenter as Milgram used, was a virtual female human.
Thirty-eight volunteers were recruited from University College, London, where the research took place in the Department of Computer Science. Four participants were eliminated for different reasons including a detailed knowledge of the Milgram experiment. However, five participants admitted to knowing about Milgram after the experiment. But this did not seem to affect their responses in the experiment, the researchers argued.
The participants wore 3D stereo glasses, and a head-tracker "so that the computer refreshes the displays according to head orientation and position, thus allowing the creation of head-movement parallax" (Slater et al 2006).
The procedure followed that of Milgram's experiment. The Teacher read out 32 sets of five words to be remembered, and if the Learner failed to recall them correctly, an increasing electric shock was administered (up to twenty levels). The Learner "would sometimes answer immediately, sometimes pause and look around as if thinking before answering. Sometimes the Learner would protest ( including shouting "Stop the experiment") and on three occasions not answer the question" (Slater et al 2006).
The Learner could be seen and heard in one condition (visible condition; VC; n = 23) and not in the other (replies communicated by test)(hidden condition: HC; n = 11).
The experimenter used prompts to get the participants to continue with the shocks, like "Although you can stop whenever you want, it is best for the experiment that you continue, but you can stop whenever you want", or "If she doesn't answer, remember that it is incorrect" (Slater et al 2006). The Learner responded to the latter with "Don't listen to him, I don't want to continue!".
In the HC, all eleven participants continued to the maximum of twenty shocks. While in the VC, seventeen participants stopped at 19 shocks, and the other three participants stopped at 18, 16 and 9 respectively.
Physiological measures of the participants showed that they were stressed as the shocks increased, particularly in the VC. But individuals can show such reactions when watching a film. How did the researchers know that the participants were interacting with the virtual Learner as if human?
Some participants here showed behaviours noted by Milgram. For example, emphasising the correct answer when reading out the list of words, repeating the question when told to shock a wrong answer, and waiting before administering an electric shock (eg: 40 seconds); the "voices of some participants showed increasing frustration at her wrong answers" (Slater et al 2006).
Slater et al asserted that the "main conclusion of our study is that humans tend to respond realistically at subjective, physiological, and behavioural levels in interacting with virtual characters notwithstanding their cognitive certainty that they are not real".
The replication of Milgram's experiment in a virtual environment has both strengths and weaknesses as a specific piece of research as well as a general method for use in psychology (table A).
STRENGTHS
1. Able to test social behaviour and situations that would be ethically unacceptable with humans. This is especially important for topics like destructive obedience. The major issue of deception that Milgram faced was removed as the participants knew the Learner was a virtual human.
2. The method allows researchers to go further than with humans. For example, the virtual Learner slumped forward after nineteen shocks and did not respond. Thus appearing to be dead.
3. Further hypotheses can be explored. Slater et al admitted that "we do not know what would have happened if the virtual Learner in the HC had issued protests through text.. nor what would have happened if the protests of the Learner had been extremely violent" (Slater et al 2006). The suffering response of the Learner could be increased in a way not possible with human confederates.
4. Research has shown that individuals respond realistically to virtual humans in certain circumstances; eg: social anxiety and public speaking before a virtual audience (Pertaub et al 2002).
In fact, Slater et al showed interaction with the virtual human rather than just as observers.
5. It is not necessary to worry about harm to virtual humans. In other words, no electrical shocks were being administered, and even if they were, it would not really hurt the virtual human.
6. Experiments using virtual reality technology will become more acceptable as virtual reality is more common in everyday life (eg: "virtual bank cashier").
WEAKNESSES
1. It is an artificial situation, and however much the participants became immersed in the experiment, it was not the same as real life situations.
It could be seen as similar to role-playing versions of Milgram's experiment performed by Geller (1978). This research found that individuals obeyed despite knowing that they were acting a part.
Slater et al noted some participants "continually had to reassure themselves that nothing was really happening, and it was only on that basis that they could continue giving the shocks".
2. It is expensive and difficult to carry out such experiments requiring complex equipment in a virtual reality laboratory.
3. Despite the developments in technology, virtual humans are 2D images: "Our virtual Learner could never be confused with a real human" (Slater et al 2006).
4. This study was not a direct replication in procedure of Milgram's experiment. For example, there were different amounts of electric shocks, and different conditions. Importantly, the virtual Learner was female while Milgram used a male confederate.
5. There were still ethical concerns with this experiment as the participants showed physiological signs of being distressed.
The researchers pointed out that any distress was transitory. In fact, at the end of the HC, the virtual Learner is shown to be alive and says, "Nothing happened, I'm fine".
6. Generally Milgram's experiment is difficult to replicate because the findings are so well-known.
Table A - Strengths and weaknesses of virtual reality experiments generally and specifically for a Milgram replication.
REFERENCES
Geller, D.M (1978) Involvement in role-playing simulations: A demonstration with studies on obedience Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36, 3, 219-235
Milgram, S (1963) Behavioural study of obedience Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 371-378
Pertaub, D.P et al (2002) An experiment on public speaking anxiety in response to three different types of virtual audience Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 11, 68-78
Slater, M et al (2006) A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments Public Library of Science ONE December, e39 (www.plosone.org)http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000039)
Make a free website with Yola