has produced evidence of good reliability and sign teer,Garbin 88 the coolee a separate roon whether they ve ng ided the clinical p em they parti anx depression ir being ted both nesatvon the anviety and x and a box with set f four ches sat or ederates arms to the along with respo oden armrests with nylon straps.I he experimenter e through use s of psychological dis ders t to pr The expe on a erae about 30 mn.Of lis 478826 by the lems in front t of the rate ,76 not m)and tha other of four butto from the study.One did no ot the plained that in shock and that dand paid think I should wer few ag roximately long as I'm getting how strong are the and experimente The The experim d o th chine was appro 3 feet long.15 inches high,and 16 4C cm At this 0. ed the ZLB Comp they itches oss the face of the machi with Mil ing a senpt h le with the shoc iom15o450m1S-volne where the confederate sa one ould play The expe heroleswoulabedecidedh ough a random drawing.The rem eing pressed to sho that the participant was alwa icn sw As in Milgram s: participant and the confederate were then asked to read and participant agreed (). The experimente January 2009.American Psychologistinventory has produced evidence of good reliability and validity (Beck, Steer, & Garbin, 1988). Upon a participant’s completion of the scales, a re￾search assistant escorted the participant to a separate room, where the participant was interviewed by a licensed clinical psychologist. The assistant also provided the clinical psy￾chologist with the completed anxiety and depression inven￾tories. The clinical psychologist was fully aware of the experimental procedures and was instructed to err on the side of caution in identifying anyone who might have a negative reaction to participating in the study. The psychol￾ogist used responses on the anxiety and depression inven￾tories along with responses to a semi-structured interview to make this assessment. The interview was structured through use of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) procedure (Lecrubier et al., 1997; Shee￾han et al., 1997). The MINI procedure briefly touches on 22 categories of psychological disorders, and follow-up ques￾tions for each category are asked as needed. The psychol￾ogist was given as long as she needed to make a determi￾nation. The interviews lasted, on average, about 30 min. Of the 123 people who participated in this second screening process, 47 (38.2%) were excluded from the study by the clinical psychologist. These excluded individuals were given their full participation payment. Because participants were promised confidentiality by the interviewers, the spe￾cific reasons for these exclusions are not known. The remaining 76 participants were scheduled for a second on-campus session, typically held about a week after the clinical interview. Six of these participants were dropped from the study. One did not return for the second session, and five expressed awareness of Milgram’s obedience research at some point during the second session. These knowledgeable participants were fully debriefed and paid. Base condition. Participants were randomly as￾signed to one of two conditions, but an attempt was made to keep the gender ratios in the conditions approximately equal. Upon arrival, participants assigned to the base con￾dition were escorted by a research assistant into the lab room and introduced to the experimenter. The experi￾menter was a White Caucasian man in his mid-30s. Ap￾proximately one minute later, the research assistant es￾corted the confederate into the lab room. The confederate was a White Caucasian male in his 50s. Both the experi￾menter and the confederate were selected in part because of their resemblance to the experimenter and confederate used by Milgram. At this point, the experimenter gave the par￾ticipant and the confederate each a $50 bill for their par￾ticipation and said the money was theirs to keep even if they chose to end their participation at any time. Using a script taken largely from the one used in Milgram’s research, the experimenter explained that the research was concerned with the effects of punishment on learning. He then informed participants that one would play the role of teacher and the other the role of learner and that the roles would be decided through a random drawing. The drawing was rigged so that the participant was always the teacher and the confederate was always the learner. The participant and the confederate were then asked to read and sign consent forms. The consent form informed partici￾pants that they could end their participation at any time and still keep their money and that they might be videotaped during the study. If participants asked whether they were being videotaped, the experimenter told them they should assume they were being taped. In fact, participants were being videotaped by two hidden cameras. The experimenter then escorted both individuals to the room next door, which contained a chair facing a table. An intercom box and a box with a set of four switches sat on the table. The experimenter asked the confederate to sit in the chair and then secured the confederate’s arms to the wooden armrests with nylon straps. The experimenter ex￾plained the step was necessary “to prevent excessive move￾ment during the experiment.” The experimenter attached an electrode to the confederate’s left wrist and added electrode paste, explaining that the paste would “provide a good contact to prevent blisters or burns.” The experimenter also pointed out that the electrode was connected to the shock generator in the adjacent room. The participant stood a few feet away throughout this process. The experimenter then placed a list of sample prob￾lems in front of the confederate and gave the confederate instructions patterned after those used by Milgram. The confederate was told to try to remember each of 25 word pairs read by the experimenter (e.g., strong–arm) and that during the test the experimenter would read the first word in each pair followed by four other words. The confeder￾ate’s task was to indicate by pressing one of four buttons which of the option words was paired with the word on the original list. The experimenter also explained that incorrect answers would result in an electric shock and that the test would continue until all 25 word pairs were learned. At this point, the confederate said, “I think I should say this. When I was in Kaiser Hospital a few years ago, they detected a slight heart condition. Nothing serious. But as long as I’m getting these shocks—how strong are they? How dangerous are they?” The experimenter answered, “While the shocks may be painful, they’re not dangerous.” The experimenter and the participant returned to the experiment room, with the experimenter closing the door to the learner’s room and the lab room behind him. The partic￾ipant was seated in front of the shock generator, which was built to match the one used in Milgram’s research. The ma￾chine was approximately 3 feet long, 15 inches high, and 16 inches deep (91.4 cm 38.1 cm 40.6 cm). A label in the upper left-hand corner of the box contained the words “Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass. Output 15 volts – 450 Volts.” There were 30 switches across the face of the machine, with accompanying volt indicators ranging from 15 to 450 in 15-volt increments. The table with the shock generator was on the other side of the wall where the confederate sat. The experimenter gave the participant instructions on how to press the switches, demonstrating how the switch remained in the middle position after being pressed to show which switches had been used. As in Milgram’s studies, the experimenter also gave the participant a sample shock if the participant agreed (only two declined). The experimenter 6 January 2009 ● American Psychologist