Posts Tagged ‘Soc’

RI NA8 Sociologia. Avaliação Final.

novembro 24, 2014
  1. Adriano Parisi Barreiros 8,0
  2. Amanda Fernandes Heleno 9,0
  3. Ana Beatriz Dias Bento 8,5
  4. Ana Carolina Alegretti Marcheti 9,5
  5. Ana Clara Carril Costa Ribeiro 8,0
  6. Andre Leite Araujo 10
  7. Andre Viti Garavaglia Marianno 9,5
  8. Augusto Fernandes Guimarães 7,5
  9. Beatriz dos Santos Neves Kahwage 9,0
  10. Bruna Nascimento Osti 10
  11. Bruno Nascimento de Paula  9,5
  12. Caio Nogueira de Oliveira e Silva 7,5
  13. Camilla Souza Silva Lopes 9,0
  14. Caroline Freires Yazbek 10
  15. Cristiane Batista Branco 5
  16. Diego Diaz Pimentel 7,5
  17. Eduarda Gonçalves Ribeiro de Castro 9,5
  18. Elaine Farah Sanches 9,0
  19. Eloiza Reinoso Correa 0
  20. Fernanda de Oliveira Castro 7,0
  21. Fernanda Oliveira Leite 9,5
  22. Fernão Kastrup Prates 9,5
  23. Gabriel Amato Perez Gonzaga de Oliveira 9,5
  24. Gabriela Vicente Goncales 9,5
  25. Guilherme Augusto Souza Terrengui 7,5
  26. Guilherme Lorando Gomes da Silva 8,5
  27. Ionatan Bulka Bery 10
  28. Isabella Cristina do Nascimento Pereira 10
  29. Jessica Castilho Castro 10
  30. Jessica Mandari Colabuono 9,5
  31. Julia Tibiriça Diegues Gomes 8,5
  32. Juliana Moreira de Souza Tubini 8,5
  33. Karliene Castelari de Souza 9,5
  34. Larissa Mylla Misch 9,0
  35. Leticia Bittencourt Bottesi 9,5
  36. Leticia Terumi Kita 9,5
  37. Li Zhaofang Vasconcelos 9,5
  38. Lívia Radaeski 7,5
  39. Lucas Daffre Abramo 9,5
  40. Lucas Nabeshima 9,5
  41. Luiz Renato Arietti Nais 8,5
  42. Luiza Ranceford Hadley 9,5
  43. Maira Macario de Brito 9,5
  44. Maria Victoria Poli Cipeda 5
  45. Marina Lury Ishimoto Bombana 9,5
  46. Miguel Armando Lima Brito 8,0
  47. Miguel Jabur de Souza e Silva 8,0
  48. Moara Bazoni Figueiredo 6,5
  49. Patricia Vilarouca de Azevedo 9,5
  50. Rafael Hernandez de Campos 7,5
  51. Rafael Oliveira Gibeli 9,5
  52. Rafael Ranzoni Ferreira 7,5
  53. Rafaela Grizzo Ragazzi 8,5
  54. Rafaela Magyar Andrade 8,0
  55. Raisa Achui Haga 7,0
  56. Rebeca Franco de Abreu 9,0
  57. Renata Tunoda Washington 8,5
  58. Thais Barbosa de Macedo 8,0
  59. Thiago Henrique Garcia dos Santos 7,5
  60. Ulysses de Oliveira Santos Neto 9,0

Kely de Paula Esteves 6,0 está sem registro na disciplina.

Anúncios

Para RI Turmas MA8 e NA8. S. Milgram. Estudo sobre a Obediência

outubro 2, 2014

Um estudo clássico sobre obediência e comportamento social. Para auxiliar a leitura do texto “Modernidade e Holocausto” do Bauman.

http://www.slideshare.net/felixruizsanchez/behavioral-study-of-obedience-by-s-milgram-39816901

  • Behavioral Study of Obedience By STANLEY MILGRAM YALE UNIVERSITY This article describes a procedure for the study of destructive obedience in the laboratory. It consists ordering a naive S to administer increasingly more severe punishment to a victim in the context experiment. Punishment is administered by means of a shock generator with 30 graded switches from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The victim is a confederate of the E. The primary dependent variable is the maximum shock the S is willing to administer before he refuses to continue further. obeyed the experimental commands fully, and administered the highest shock on the generator. off the experiment at some point after the victim protested and refused to provide further answers. procedure created extreme levels of nervous tension in some Ss. Profuse sweating, trembling, and were typical expressions of this emotional disturbance. One unexpected sign of tension–yet to be was the regular occurrence of nervous laughter, which in some Ss developed into uncontrollable The variety of interesting behavioral dynamics observed in the experiment, the reality of the situation S, and the possibility of parametric variation within the framework of the procedure, point to the further study. Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the man dwelling in isolation who is not forced respond, through defiance or submission, to the commands of others. Obedience, as a determinant behavior, is of particular relevance to our time. It has been reliably established that from 1933—innocent persons were systematically slaughtered on command. Gas chambers were built, death were guarded; daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same efficiency as the manufacture appliances. These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed orders. Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation life suggest that for many persons obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. C. P. Snow (1961) importance when he writes: When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. If that, read William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” The German Officer Corps were brought the most rigorous code of obedience . . . in the name of obedience they were party to, and assisted most wicked large scale actions in the history of the world [p. 24]. While the particular form of obedience dealt with in the present study has its antecedents in these it must not be thought all obedience entails acts of aggression against others. Obedience serves productive functions. Indeed, the very life of society is predicated on its existence. Obedience may ennobling and educative and refer to acts of charity and kindness as well as to destruction. General Procedure A procedure was devised which seems useful as a tool for studying obedience (Milgram, 1961).
  • ordering a naive subject to administer electric shock to a victim. A simulated shock generator is 30 clearly marked voltage levels that range from 15 to 450 volts. The instrument bears verbal designations that range from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The responses of the victim, who is a trained confederate of the experimenter, are standardized. The orders to administer shocks are given to subject in the context of a “learning experiment” ostensibly set up to study the effects of punishment memory. As the experiment proceeds the naive subject is commanded to administer increasingly intense shocks to the victim, even to the point of reaching the level marked Danger: Severe Shock. resistances become stronger, and at a certain point the subject refuses to go on with the experiment. Behavior prior to this rupture is considered “obedience,” in that the subject complies with the commands the experimenter. The point of rupture is the act of disobedience. A quantitative value is assigned subject’s performance based on the maximum intensity shock he is willing to administer before he participate further. Thus for any particular subject and for any particular experimental condition the obedience may be specified with a numerical value. The crux of the study is to systematically vary factors believed to alter the degree of obedience to the experimental commands. The technique allows important variables to be manipulated at several points in the experiment. vary aspects of the source of command, content and form of command, instrumentalities for its execution, target object, general social setting, etc. The problem, therefore, is not one of designing increasingly numerous experimental conditions, but of selecting those that best illuminate the process of obedience the sociopsychological standpoint. TABLE 1 Distribution of Age and Occupational Types in the Experiment OCCUPATIONS 20—29 years n 30—39 years n 40—50 years n PERCENTAGE OF (OCCUPATIONS) Workers, skilled, and unskilled 4 5 6 37.5 Sales, business, and white-collar 3 6 7 40.0 Professional 1 5 3 22.5 Percentage of total (Age) 20 40 40 Note.–Total N540. Related Studies The inquiry bears an important relation to philosophic analyses of obedience and authority (Arendt, Friedrich, 1958; Weber, 1947), an early experimental study of obedience by Frank (1944), studies “authoritarianism” (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Rokeach, 1961), and series of analytic and empirical studies in social power (Cartwright, 1959). It owes much to the long with suggestion in social psychology, both in its normal forms (e.g., Binet, 1900) and in its clinical manifestations (Charcot, 1881). But it derives, in the first instance, from direct observation of a social the individual who is commanded by a legitimate authority ordinarily obeys. Obedience comes easily often. It is a ubiquitous and indispensable feature of social life.
  • Method SUBJECTS The subjects were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, drawn from New Haven and the surrounding communities. Subjects were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation. responded to the appeal believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at University. A wide range of occupations is represented in the sample. Typical subjects were postal high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers. Subjects ranged in educational level from had not finished elementary school, to those who had doctorate and other professional degrees. paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment. However, subjects were told that payment was coming to the laboratory, and that the money was theirs no matter what happened after they arrived. shows the proportion of age and occupational types assigned to the experimental condition. PERSONNEL AND LOCALE The experiment was conducted on the grounds of Yale University in the elegant interaction laboratory. detail is relevant to the perceived legitimacy of the experiment. In further variations, the experiment dissociated from the university, with consequences for performance.) The role of experimenter was by a 31-year-old high school teacher of biology. His manner was impassive, and his appearance stern throughout the experiment. He was dressed in a gray technician’s coat. The victim was played year-old accountant, trained for the role; he was of Irish-American stock, whom most observers and likable. PROCEDURE One naive subject and one victim (an accomplice) performed in each experiment. A pretext had devised that would justify the administration of electric shock by the naive subject. This was effectively accomplished by the cover story. After a general introduction on the presumed relation between and learning, subjects were told: But actually, we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning, because almost no truly studies have been made of it in human beings. For instance, we don’t know how much punishment is best for learning–and we don’t know how difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment, whether an adult learns best from a younger older person than himself–or many things of that sort. So in this study we are bringing together a number of adults of different occupations and ages. And asking some of them to be teachers and some of them to be learners. We want to find out just what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners, what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation. Therefore, I’m going to ask one of you to be the teacher here tonight and the other one to be the Does either of you have a preference? Subjects then drew slips of paper from a hat to determine who would be the teacher and who would learner in the experiment. The drawing was rigged so that the naive subject was always the teacher accomplice always the learner. (Both slips contained the word “Teacher.”) Immediately after the View slide
  • teacher and learner were taken to an adjacent room and the learner was strapped into an “electric apparatus. The experimenter explained that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner being shocked. The effect was to make it impossible for him to escape from the situation. An electrode attached to the learner’s wrist, and electrode paste was applied “to avoid blisters and burns.” Subjects told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room. In order to improve credibility the experimenter declared, in response to a question by the learner: the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage.” Learning Task The lesson administered by the subject was a paired-associate learning task. The read a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first word of the pair along with four learner was to indicate which of the four terms had originally been paired with the first word. He communicated his answer by pressing one of four switches in front of him, which in turn lit up one numbered quadrants in an answer-box located atop the shock generator. Shock Generator The instrument panel consists of 30 lever switches set in a horizontal line. Each clearly labeled with a voltage designation that ranges from 15 to 450 volts. There is a 15-volt increment one switch to the next going from left to right. In addition, the following verbal designations are clearly indicated for groups of four switches going from left to right: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. (Two switches this last designation are simply marked XXX.) Upon depressing a switch: a pilot light corresponding to each switch is illuminated in bright red; buzzing is heard; an electric blue light, labeled “voltage energizer,” flashes; the dial on the voltage swings to the right; various relay clicks are sounded. The upper left-hand corner of the generator is labeled Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass. Output 15 Volts—450 Volts. Details of the instrument were carefully handled to insure an appearance of authenticity. The panel engraved by precision industrial engravers, and all components were of high quality. No subject experiment suspected that the instrument was merely a simulated shock generator.1 Sample Shock Each naive subject is given a sample shock on the shock generator, prior to beginning run as teacher. This shock is always 45 volts, and is applied by pressing the third switch of the generator. The shock is applied to the wrist of the naive subject, and has its source in a 45-volt battery wired generator. This further convinces the subject of the authenticity of the generator. Shock Instructions The subject is told to administer a shock to the learner each time he gives response. Moreover–and this is the key command–the subject is instructed to “move one level higher shock generator each time the learner flashes a wrong answer.” He is also instructed to announce voltage level before administering a shock. This serves to continually remind subjects of the increasing intensity of shocks administered to the learner. Preliminary and Regular Run Pretests revealed that the procedure of reading words and administering shocks requires some practice before it can be handled smoothly. Therefore, immediately preceding regular run, the teacher is given a preliminary series of 10 words to read to the learner. There are words in the practice series (i.e., words that the learner answers correctly), so that shocks are administered for 7 of the words, with the maximum shock at 105 volts (moderate shock). Almost all subjects master View slide
  • procedure by the time the preliminary run is over. Subjects are then presented with a second list, and are told that the procedure is the same as for list; the experimenter adds, however: When you get to the bottom of the list, repeat it over again, and continue giving shocks, until the learned all the pairs correctly. The experimenter instructs the subject to, start from 15 volts and increase the shock level one step each time the learner gives a wrong answer. Feedback from the Victim In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses pair test, based on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer. In the experimental condition no vocal response or other sign of protest is heard from the learner until 300 is reached. When the 300-volt shock is administered, the learner pounds on the wall of the which he is bound to the electric chair. The pounding can be heard by the subject. From this point learner’s answers no longer appear on the four-way panel. At this juncture, subjects ordinarily turn to the experimenter for guidance. The experimenter instructs subject to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer, and to shock the subject according usual schedule. He advises the subjects to allow 5—10 seconds before considering no response answer, and to increase the shock level one step each time the learner fails to respond correctly. learner’s pounding is repeated after the 315-volt shock is administered; afterwards he is not heard do his answers reappear on the four-way signal box. Experimenter Feedback At various points in the experiment the subject may turn to the experimenter advice on whether he should continue to administer shocks. Or he may indicate that he does not on. It was important to standardize the experimenter’s responses to these inquiries and reactions. If the subject indicated his unwillingness to go on, the experimenter responded with a sequence using as many as necessary to bring the subject into line. Prod 1: Please continue. or Please go on. Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on. The prods were always made in sequence: Only if Prod 1 had been unsuccessful, could Prod 2 the subject refused to obey the experimenter after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was at all times firm, but not impolite. The sequence was begun anew occasion that the subject balked or showed reluctance to follow orders. Special prods. If the subject asked if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury, the experimenter said: Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on. [Followed Prods 2, 3, and 4 if necessary.]
  • If the subject said that the learner did not want to go on, the experimenter replied: Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. go on. [Followed by Prods 2, 3, and 4 if necessary.] DEPENDENT MEASURES The primary dependent measure for any subject is the maximum shock he administers before he go any further. In principle this may vary from 0 (for a subject who refuses to administer even the to 30 (for a subject who administers the highest shock on the generator). A subject who breaks experiment at any point prior to administering the thirtieth shock level is termed a defiant subject. complies with experimental commands fully, and proceeds to administer all shock levels commanded, termed an obedient subject. Further Records With few exceptions, experimental sessions were recorded on magnetic tape. photographs were taken through one-way mirrors. Notes were kept on any unusual behavior occurring during the course of the experiments. On occasion, additional observers were directed to write objective descriptions of the subjects’ behavior. The latency and duration of shocks were measured by accurate devices. Interview and Dehoax Following the experiment, subjects were interviewed; open-ended questions, projective measures, and attitude scales were employed. After the interview, procedures were undertaken assure that the subject would leave the laboratory in a state of well being. A friendly reconciliation arranged between the subject and the victim, and an effort was made to reduce any tensions that result of the experiment. Results PRELIMINARY NOTIONS Before giving an account of the experimental results, it is instructive to consider how persons predict will perform when commanded to administer powerful shocks to another person. Fourteen Yale psychology majors, were provided with a detailed description of the experimental situation. They to reflect carefully on it, and to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical subjects. More specifically, instructed to plot the distribution of obedience of “100 Americans of diverse occupations, and ranging from 20 to 50 years,” who were placed in the experimental situation. There was considerable agreement among the respondents on the expected behavior of hypothetical subjects. All respondents predicted that only an insignificant minority would go through to the end shock series. (The estimates ranged from 0 to 3%; i.e., the most “pessimistic” member of the class that of 100 persons, 3 would continue through to the most potent shock available on the shock generator– 450 volts.) The class mean was 1.2%. The question was also posed informally to colleagues of and the most general feeling was that few if any subjects would go beyond the designation Very Shock. RESULT OF EXPERIMENT I Subjects Accept Situation With few exceptions subjects were convinced of the reality of the experimental situation, that they were administering shocks to another person, and the most potent shocks were extremely painful. In the post-experimental interview subjects were asked: “How painful to the learner
  • the last few shocks that you administered to him?” Subjects were instructed to indicate their answers printed 14-point scale ranging from “Not at all painful” to “Extremely painful.” The modal response (Extremely painful) with the mean at 13.42. Signs of Extreme Tension Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in the experimental situation, especially upon administering the more powerful shocks. In a large number of cases the degree reached extremes that are rarely seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies. Subjects were observed sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh. These were characteristic rather than exceptional responses to the experiment. One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits. Fourteen of the 40 subjects definite signs of nervous laughter and smiling. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. On one occasion we observed a seizure violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment. The subject, a 46-year-encyclopedia salesman, was seriously embarrassed by his untoward and uncontrollable behavior. post-experimental interviews subjects took pains to point out that they were not sadistic types, and laughter did not mean they enjoyed shocking the victim. Distribution of Scores It had been conjectured that persons would not, in general, agree to administer shocks beyond the level designated as Very Strong Shock. The distribution of maximum shocks experiment is shown in Table 2. The obtained distribution of scores deviates radically from the prediction. TABLE 2 Distribution of Breakoff Points VERBAL DESIGNATION AND VOLTAGE INDICATION NUMBER OF SUBJECTS FOR WHOM WAS MAXIMUM SHOCK Slight Shock 15 0 30 0 45 0 60 0 Moderate Shock 75 0 90 0 105 0 120 0 Strong Shock 135 0 150 0 165 0 180 0 Very Strong Shock
  • 195 0 210 0 225 0 240 0 Intense Shock 255 0 270 0 285 0 300 5 Extreme Intensity Shock 315 4 330 2 345 1 360 1 Danger: Severe Shock 375 1 390 0 405 0 420 0 XXX 435 0 450 26 Upon command of the experimenter, each of the 40 subjects went beyond the expected break-off subject stopped prior to administering Shock Level 20. (At this level–300 volts–the victim kicks on and no longer provides answers to the teacher’s multiple-choice questions.) Of the 40 subjects, 5 refused to obey the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt level. Four subjects administered one further shock, and then refused to go on. Two broke off at the 330-volt 1 each at 345, 360, and 375 volts. Thus a total of 14 subjects defied the experimenter. It is instructive reprint their remarks at the point of definance, as transcribed from the tape recordings: [0124] I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking. . . . Well it’s not fair to shock the guy . . terrific volts. I don’t think this is very humane. . . . Oh, I can’t go on with this; no, this isn’t right. It’s an experiment. The guy is suffering in there. No, I don’t want to go on. This is crazy. [Subject refused administer more shocks.] [0123] He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a man. sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurt his heart. You take your check. . . . No really, I couldn’t do These subjects were frequently in a highly agitated and even angered state. Sometimes, verbal at a minimum, and the subject simply got up from his chair in front of the shock generator, and indicated
  • he wished to leave the laboratory. Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end, proceeding to punish the until they reached the most potent shock available on the shock generator. At that point, the experimenter called a halt to the session. (The maximum shock is labeled 450 volts, and is two steps beyond designation: Danger: Severe Shock.) Although obedient subjects continued to administer shocks, did so under extreme stress. Some expressed reluctance to administer shocks beyond the 300-and displayed fears similar to those who defied the experimenter; yet they obeyed. After the maximum shocks had been delivered, and the experimenter called a halt to the proceedings, obedient subjects heaved sighs of relief, mopped their brows, rubbed their fingers over their eyes, nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some shook their heads, apparently in regret. Some subjects had calm throughout the experiment, and displayed only minimal signs of tension from beginning to Discussion The experiment yielded two findings that were surprising. The first finding concerns the sheer strength obedient tendencies manifested in this situation. Subjects have learned from childhood that it is fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects abandon tenet in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands. disobey would bring no material loss to the subject; no punishment would ensue. It is clear from and outward behavior of many participants that in punishing the victim they are often acting against values. Subjects often expressed deep disapproval of shocking a man in the face of his objections, others denounced it as stupid and senseless. Yet the majority complied with the experimental commands. This outcome was surprising from two perspectives: first, from the standpoint of predictions made questionnaire described earlier. (Here, however, it is possible that the remoteness of the respondents the actual situation, and the difficulty of conveying to them the concrete details of the experiment, account for the serious underestimation of obedience.) But the results were also unexpected to persons who observed the experiment in progress, through mirrors. Observers often uttered expressions of disbelief upon seeing a subject administer more shocks to the victim. These persons had a full acquaintance with the details of the situation, and systematically underestimated the amount of obedience that subjects would display. The second unanticipated effect was the extraordinary tension generated by the procedures. One suppose that a subject would simply break off or continue as his conscience dictated. Yet, this is from what happened. There were striking reactions of tension and emotional strain. One observer I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his forehead and muttered: “Oh God, let’s stop it.” And yet he continued to respond to every word of experimenter, and obeyed to the end. Any understanding of the phenomenon of obedience must rest on an analysis of the particular conditions which it occurs. The following features of the experiment go some distance in explaining the high obedience observed in the situation. 1. The experiment is sponsored by and takes place on the grounds of an institution of unimpeachable reputation, Yale University. It may be reasonably presumed that the personnel are competent and
  • The importance of this background authority is now being studied by conducting a series of experiments outside of New Haven, and without any visible ties to the university. 2. The experiment is, on the face of it, designed to attain a worthy purpose–advancement of knowledge about learning and memory. Obedience occurs not as an end in itself, but as an instrumental element situation that the subject construes as significant, and meaningful. He may not be able to see its significance, but he may properly assume that the experimenter does. 3. The subject perceives that the victim has voluntarily submitted to the authority system of the experimenter. He is not (at first) an unwilling captive impressed for involuntary service. He has taken the trouble the laboratory presumably to aid the experimental research. That he later becomes an involuntary does not alter the fact that, initially, he consented to participate without qualification. Thus he has degree incurred an obligation toward the experimenter. 4. The subject, too, has entered the experiment voluntarily, and perceives himself under obligation experimenter. He has made a commitment, and to disrupt the experiment is a repudiation of this promise of aid. 5. Certain features of the procedure strengthen the subject’s sense of obligation to the experimenter. one, he has been paid for coming to the laboratory. In part this is canceled out by the experimenter’s statement that: Of course, as in all experiments, the money is yours simply for coming to the laboratory. From this no matter what happens, the money is yours.2 6. From the subject’s standpoint, the fact that he is the teacher and the other man the learner is chance consequence (it is determined by drawing lots) and he, the subject, ran the same risk as man in being assigned the role of learner. Since the assignment of positions in the experiment was by fair means, the learner is deprived of any basis of complaint on this count. (A similar situation Army units, in which–in the absence of volunteers–a particularly dangerous mission may be assigned drawing lots, and the unlucky soldier is expected to bear his misfortune with sportsmanship.) 7. There is, at best, ambiguity with regard to the prerogatives of a psychologist and the corresponding of his subject. There is a vagueness of expectation concerning what a psychologist may require subject, and when he is overstepping acceptable limits. Moreover, the experiment occurs in a closed and thus provides no opportunity for the subject to remove these ambiguities by discussion with There are few standards that seem directly applicable to the situation, which is a novel one for most subjects. 8. The subjects are assured that the shocks administered to the subject are “painful but not dangerous.” Thus they assume that the discomfort caused the victim is momentary, while the scientific gains from the experiment are enduring. 9. Through Shock Level 20 the victim continues to provide answers on the signal box. The subject construe this as a sign that the victim is still willing to “play the game.” It is only after Shock Level victim repudiates the rules completely, refusing to answer further. These features help to explain the high amount of obedience obtained in this experiment. Many arguments raised need not remain matters of speculation, but can be reduced to testable propositions confirmed or disproved by further experiments.3
  • The following features of the experiment concern the nature of the conflict which the subject faces. 10. The subject is placed in a position in which he must respond to the competing demands of two the experimenter and the victim. The conflict must be resolved by meeting the demands of one or satisfaction of the victim and the experimenter are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the resolution must form of a highly visible action, that of continuing to shock the victim or breaking off the experiment. subject is forced into a public conflict that does not permit any completely satisfactory solution. 11. While the demands of the experimenter carry the weight of scientific authority, the demands spring from his personal experience of pain and suffering. The two claims need not be regarded pressing and legitimate. The experimenter seeks an abstract scientific datum; the victim cries out from physical suffering caused by the subject’s actions. 12. The experiment gives the subject little time for reflection. The conflict comes on rapidly. It is after the subject has been seated before the shock generator that the victim begins his protests. the subject perceives that he has gone through but two-thirds of the shock levels at the time the first protests are heard. Thus he understands that the conflict will have a persistent aspect to it, become more intense as increasingly more powerful shocks are required. The rapidity with which descends on the subject, and his realization that it is predictably recurrent may well be sources him. 13. At a more general level, the conflict stems from the opposition of two deeply ingrained behavior dispositions: first, the disposition not to harm other people, and second, the tendency to obey those we perceive to be legitimate authorities. Notes 1A related technique, making use of a shock generator, was reported by Buss (1961) for the study aggression in the laboratory. Despite the considerable similarity of technical detail in the experimental procedures, both investigators proceeded in ignorance of the other’s work. Milgram provided plans photographs of his shock generator, experimental procedure, and first results in a report to the National Science Foundation in January 1961. This report received only limited circulation. Buss reported procedure 6 months later, but to a wider audience. Subsequently, technical information and reports exchanged. The present article was first received in the Editor’s office on December 27, 1961; it resubmitted with deletions on July 27, 1962. 2Forty-three subjects, undergraduates at Yale University, were run in the experiment without payment. results are very similar to those obtained with paid subjects. 3A series of recently completed experiments employing the obedience paradigm is reported in Milgram (1964). References 1. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. York: Harper, 1950. 2. Arendt, H. What was authority? In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), Authority. Cambridge: Harvard Univer. 1958. Pp. 81—112.
  • 3. Binet, A. La suggestibilité. Paris: Schleicher, 1900. 4. Buss, A. H. The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961. 5. Cartwright, S. (Ed.) Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1959. 6. Charcot, J. M. Oeuvres complètes. Paris: Bureaux du Progrès Médical, 1881. 7. Frank, J. D. Experimental studies of personal pressure and resistance. J. gen. Psychol., 1944, 64. 8. Friedrich, C. J. (Ed.) Authority. Cambridge: Harvard Univer. Press, 1958. 9. Milgram, S. Dynamics of obedience. Washington: National Science Foundation, 25 January 1961. (Mimeo) 10 Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Hum. Relat., 1964, 11. Rokeach, M. Authority, authoritarianism, and conformity. In I. A. Berg & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Conformity and deviation. New York: Harper, 1961. Pp. 230—257. 12. Snow, C. P. Either-or. Progressive, 1961 (Feb.), 24. 13. Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford: Oxford Univer. Press, 1947. Questions for Reflection and Discussion: Note that several of the questions are similar to those asked in conjunction with Solomon Asch’s “Opinions and Social Pressure.” 1. Do you see subjects’ willingness to administer shock in the Milgram study as the behavioral or equivalent of the Nazis’ extermination of people in the death camps? Why or why not? 2. Milgram’s methods made the subjects extremely uncomfortable. Do you believe that his research ethical? Why or why not? 3. Milgram undertook his research in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before Ethics Review Committees were established. These committees weigh the value of proposed research against its potential were proposing the research to such a committee, what arguments could you make in its favor? a member of such a committee, what arguments might you make to block the research? 4. Can you think of a way in which Milgram’s research might have been conducted without deceiving subjects? 5. Milgram “debriefed” subjects after they participated in the study. That is, he explained that they really shock anyone. Debriefing is intended to protect subjects from harm. If you had participated study, which would you have found more stressful: belief that you had or had not shocked anyone? 6. How do you believe that you would have behaved if you had been a subject in Milgram’s study? you have obeyed the experimenter or refused to do so? Are you sure?
  • 7. Why is Milgram’s research considered so important in the history of psychology? Is it as important Why or why not? 8. What do you see as the message of Milgram’s study? Source Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 378. Permission granted by Alexandra Milgram. Return to index.

Eles tomam champanha no Maracanã!

julho 1, 2013

camarote1

Nas suítes privativas dos estádios reformados com dinheiro público, milionários e empresas pagam 2,3 milhões de dólares por ingresso vendido por associada da FIFA.

 

Andrew Jennings, Pública, 28 de junho de 2013

Fotos revelam o estilo de vida efervescente que a Fifa oferece ao público endinheirado que vem ao Brasil para a Copa do Mundo. Essa semana, o secretário geral da FIFA, Jerôme Valcke, anunciou que a Maison Taittinger terá exclusividade para abastecer de champanhe os compradores dos pacotes VIP Hospitality.

Essas suítes, em estádios como o Maracanã, custam mais de 2,3 milhões de dólares para todo o campeonato. Esse folheto de propaganda de circulação limitada foi disponibilizado pela FIFA apenas para os 250 indivíduos e empresas mais ricos do mundo, com condições de usufruir a vida nas su’ites milionárias que aparecem nas ilustrações.

De modo chocante revelam que são poucos os consumidores ricos que realmente querem ver o futebol. Enquanto os jogos rolam, eles irão bebericar champanhe em copos flute, falar de negócios e se entreter, todo o tempo de costas para o campo!

As suítes privativas, as mais caras, tem assentos para oito visitantes. O folheto mostra dois deles assistindo ao jogo e os outros seis comendo, conversando e fazendo pedidos ao garçom sem demonstrar o menor interesse pelo espetáculo no gramado.

Os clientes se sentarão em poltronas confortáveis e terão a seu dispor “bar e serviço de alimentação luxuosos, um brinde comemorativo, um kit vip de hospitalidade e serão recebidos por hostesses”. No Studio Bossa Nova a situação é ainda pior. Ali são 14 visitantes, bebendo, comendo e conversando – mas apenas dois entretidos com o futebol.

Os clientes ainda podem optar por ‘poltronas especialmente acolchoadas’, as Business Seats, com bar de primeira linha e alimentação de alta qualidade. O contrato para vender esse estilo, digamos, borbulhante de torcer é de exclusividade da companhia MATCH que tem laços há muito estabelecidos com o presidente da FIFA, Sepp Blatter, e seu sobrinho Philippe Blatter.

Os irmãos Jaime e Enrique Byrom, mexicanos que vivem em Londres, tem 85% da MATCH Hospitality e a Infront, companhia de Philippe Blatter sediada em Zurique, tem 5%. O grupo japonês Dentsu também tem 5%. O Dentsu era sócio da ISL, a companhia de marketing hoje falida que pagou propinas de mais de 100 milhões de dólares aos diretores da FIFA, incluindo Havelange e Teixeira.

Os irmãos Byrom foram premiados com os melhores ingressos do MATCH Hospitality. Os preços são altos mesmo para milionários porque a companhia Byrom perdeu cerca de 50 milhões de dólares na Copa da África do Sul em 2010 e estão determinados a recuperar esse dinheiro no Brasil – e realizar grandes lucros também. Há um ano os Byrom se gabavam de que o programa Hospitality já tinha atingido o recorde de 262 milhões de dólares vendidos.

Vamos ver agora se os estrangeiros ricos não terão receio de ocupar suas suítes Hospitality. O cheiro do gás lacrimogêneo não combina com champanhe e salada de lagosta.

Os Byrom tem 12 mil ingressos Hospitality para o Jogo de Abertura, mais 12 mil ingressos para dois jogos do grupo do Brasil e outros 110.500 para jogos de outras equipes favoritas. Se o Brasil for para a próxima rodada – de 16 times – vai jogar duas partidas para as quais os Byrom tem 20 mil ingressos. A FIFA também os brindou com 33 mil ingressos para outras partidas dessa rodada.

Se o Brasil passar para as quartas de final, os Byrom terão mais 20 mil ingressos para essas duas partidas – e mais 16 mil para outros jogos dessa rodada. Ele também tem 24 mil ingressos para as duas semifinais. Para a final no Rio, eles têm pelo menos 12 mil ingressos.

Aparentemente, os Byrom se apropriaram da maior parte da Copa 2014. Eles vão operar a venda de ingressos da FIFA e distribuir cerca de 3,3 milhões ingressos.

A FIFA também garantiu aos Byrom o privilégio de operar a agência oficial de hospedagem para 2014. Em seu site, os Byrom se anunciam como operadores da “hospedagem, ingressos, hospitality, soluções de TI, tours para visitantes, e oferta de alimentação para as seleções, delegações, patrocinadores, membros da mídia e torcedores”.