The Impact Of Technology On The Development Of...

Drawing on examples from Chapters 2, 6 and 7 of Investigating Psychology, discuss the claim that technology has played a decisive role in the development of psychological research. Firstly, this essay will discuss the work by Stanley Milgram (1963) and his obedience studies which used technology to see how far people would obey an authority figure. I will follow this with the ethics argument that surrounded it, noting the issues raised by Diana Baumrind (1964). An updated version of Milgram’s (1963) experiment, carried out by Mel Slater and colleagues (2006) which used technology to replicate it. Moving on, friendship will be examined with the work of Brian Biegelow and John La Gaipa (1975), and other work by William Corsaro (2006).†¦show more content†¦The level of distress was noted, and even though some of the ‘teachers’ protested, the experimenter urged them to proceed, or they were told ‘you have no choice; you must carry on’ Banyard (2012, p.73). The experiment was a controlled in the sense that each ‘teacher’ heard the same cries of distress from the next room, they all met the same ‘learner’ and so on. This point of the experiment is important because although they were encouraged to continue, surprisingly few exercised their right to stop, most just did as they were told, which was the basis of the defence for many of those at the Nuremburg trials, which preceded the study; â€Å"I was just following orders† Banyard (2012). The results seemed to support the hypothesis that people obey those in a position of authority, and Milgram (1963) carried out many variations of this original study. The ethics of the study were however called into question (Banyard, 2012). One protestors among many was Diana Baumrind (Banyard, 2012). Baumrind (1964) argued whether the ‘welfare of the participants’ was considered Banyard (2012, p.79). Baumrind (1964) further criticised the experiment for the damage it could do the public’s perception of psychology (Banyard, 2012). In Milgram’s (1963) defence, he was not ignorant of the potential harm caused to participants, (Banyard, 2012). In fact, he was