Virtual torture experiment revisits classic psych obedience test
A group of UK scientists recently recreated the ethically-questionable Milgram experiment using a virtual shock-victim. Instead of observing subjects' obedience patterns, the experiment was designed to determine whether or not torturing a virtual being would cause emotional distress. The study seemed to provide evidence of bond-forming between some participants and the virtual character, as 6 of 23 subjects allowed to see and hear the victim refused to carry out the shock treatment to its end.Scientists hope to use these findings to support the use of virtual beings (in place of real people) in psychological research, allowing researches to conduct otherwise unethical studies. But, as Collision Detection notes, this recent experiment also adds to the ongoing discourse about the affects of video game violence on the human psyche. If on some level of consciousness we do not distinguish between humans and our virtual counterparts, can violence enacted upon these virtual beings in video game worlds desensitize our reactions to real-life suffering? How long before a lawyer points to this study to justify his client's heinous act as a simple case of "GTA made him do it"?
[Via Collision Detection]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
benjamin @ Jan 9th 2007 7:38AM
I've always wished someone would have me participate in this experiment. I'd crank the voltage up to maximum and, when they asked if I did it under the order of the proctor I'd reply "No, I did it because I'm a mean, spiteful bastard!"
Count Zero @ Jan 9th 2007 7:59AM
You mean, spiteful bastard!
Chocolate Starfish @ Jan 9th 2007 8:59AM
6/23 is about 25%. With a sample that small, this is not a finding. This is a statistical fart. This means less than nothing. In a psychology experiment, no less, where numerical data is fluffy anyway.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
kip @ Jan 9th 2007 9:57AM
Murder simulators were bad enough, now we have torture simulators too?! This is an outrage! I predict this game will lead to an Auschwitz times ten! thousand!
sploy @ Jan 9th 2007 11:10AM
I also would like to electrocute someone :-)
Michael Foody @ Jan 9th 2007 11:21AM
This misses the point of why these experiments are unethical. Milgrams experiment wasn't unethical because someone is being tortured, no one was tortured, it was an actor. It was unethical because of the stress placed on the person administering the shocks. If people empathize with the virtual victim the experiments are still unethical. If they don't the experiments are merely pointless.
Now, knowing to what extent people empathize with a virtual person is in itself an interesting experiment, but I fail to understand how the experiment will facilitate ethical work-arounds.
Cynders @ Jan 9th 2007 12:34PM
Okay, I'd probably zap the hell out of a virtual victim, but, if I thought that the recipient of the shocks was a real human being I would react differently.
steve @ Jan 9th 2007 2:09PM
Is that psylocke on the screen?
TheBrain @ Jan 9th 2007 4:03PM
Interesting...doesn't seem like they found much but the fact they are looking at this stuff makes me hope my UK Psych application gets accepted.....
RonRico @ Jan 9th 2007 9:36PM
The conclusion considers that you can't go on torturing because you can't distinguish between human and virtual beings. What if it's not about the victim but about yourself as a torturer? I mean, torturing an insect as a kid or as a grownup is different because of the conscious you have of your action. Torturing a virtual counterpart is still expressing something about your inner self.
Feral @ Jan 24th 2007 5:47PM
"This misses the point of why these experiments are unethical. Milgrams experiment wasn't unethical because someone is being tortured, no one was tortured, it was an actor. It was unethical because of the stress placed on the person administering the shocks. If people empathize with the virtual victim the experiments are still unethical. If they don't the experiments are merely pointless.
Now, knowing to what extent people empathize with a virtual person is in itself an interesting experiment, but I fail to understand how the experiment will facilitate ethical work-arounds."
Michael Foody, it's simple. Milgram didn't disclose to his participants what his study was about. Had he done so, they might not have chosen to particpate. Then as they tried to quit the study they were (by design) pressured to continue. Consequently, the study was unethical not because it placed "stress" on the participants, it's because Milgram did not obtain informed consent.
Boo @ Mar 27th 2007 12:30PM
I am a A level psychology student and have just learnt about this study. Both of you are right. The experiment was unethical both because it caused stress and because Milgram didn't obtain informed consent :D