|
READING PASSAGE 2
You
should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 14-26, which are based on Reading
Passage 2 below.
|
Nature or
Nurture?
|
|
A
|
A few years ago, in one of the
most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology,
Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of
life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a
situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the
actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each
volunteer 'teacher-subject' that the experiment was in the noble cause of
education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for
their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to
learn.
|
|
B
|
Milgram’s experimental set-up
involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with
labels ranging from '15 volts of electricity (slight shock)' to ‘450 volts
(danger - severe shock)' in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was
told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock
was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in
severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed 'pupil' was in
reality an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by
emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writhings together with an
assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and
the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions
of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for. as
per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.
|
|
C
|
As the experiment unfolded,
the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed
by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up
to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects
balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to
Milgram with questioning locks and/or complaints about continuing the
experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the
teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil's cries for mercy and carry on with
the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said
that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be
followed through to the end. His final argument was, ‘You have no other
choice. You must go on.' What Milgram was trying to discover was the number
of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels
of shock, even in the face of strong persona! and moral revulsion against
the rules and conditions of the experiment.
|
|
D
|
Prior to carrying out the
experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists
and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary
population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of
450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the
teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists
felt that 'most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts' and they further
anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore,
they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1.000 would give
the highest shock of 450 volts.
|
|
E
|
What were the actual results?
Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up
to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries,
the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85
per cent in one country How can we possibly account for this vast
discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the
comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative
teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life?
|
|
F
|
One’s first inclination might
be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression
instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s
teacher- subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this
pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A
modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this
aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of
survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of
life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our
genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.
|
|
G
|
An alternative to this notion
ot genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects' actions as a result
of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As
Milgram himself pointed out. Most subjects in the experiment see their
behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society -
the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong
claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform
there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears
evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting.’
|
|
H
|
Thus, in this explanation the
subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with
that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties
like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent
systems of authority.
|
|
I
|
Here we have two radically
different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to
forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an
institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists
and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is
more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modem sociobiology - to
discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at
least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their
environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way. sociobiology is
concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.
|
Questions 14-19
Reading Passage 2 has nine
paragraphs, A-I.
Which paragraph contains the
following information?
Write the correct letter A-I
in boxes 14-19 on your answer sheet.
|
14
|
a
biological explanation of the teacher-subjects’ behaviour
the
explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment
the
identity of the pupils
the
expected statistical outcome
the
general aim of sociobiological study
the
way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue
|
|
15
|
|
16
|
|
17
|
|
18
|
|
19
|
Questions 20-22
Choose the correct letter A,
B, C or D.
Write your answers in boxes 20-22
on your answer sheet.
|
20
|
The
teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether
|
|
A
|
a
450-volt shock was dangerous.
punishment
helps learning.
the
pupils were honest.
they
were suited to teaching.
|
|
B
|
|
C
|
|
D
|
|
21
|
The
teacher-subjects were instructed to
|
|
A
|
stop
when a pupil asked them to.
denounce
pupils who made mistakes.
reduce
the shock level after a correct answer.
give
punishment according to a rule.
|
|
B
|
|
C
|
|
D
|
|
22
|
Before
the experiment took place the psychiatrists
|
|
A
|
believed
that a shock of 150 volts was too dangerous.
failed
to agree on how the teacher-subjects would respond to instructions.
underestimated
the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.
thought
that many of the teacher-subjects would administer a shock of 450 volts.
|
|
B
|
|
C
|
|
D
|
Questions 10-13
Do the following statements
agree with the information given in Reading Passage 2?
In boxes 23-26 on
your answer sheet, write
|
TRUE
|
if
the statement agrees with the information
|
|
FALSE
|
if
the statement contradicts the information
|
|
NOT
GIVEN
|
if
there is no information on this
|
|
23
|
Several
of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University.
Some
people may believe that the teacher-subjects’ behaviour could be explained
as a positive survival mechanism.
In
a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than
authority.
Milgram’s
experiment solves an important question in sociobiology.
|
|
24
|
|
25
|
|
26
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
thank you for visiting my blog and for your nice comments