This time the subjects were in fMRI scanners while they delivered electric shocks for money.
But in FeldmanHall’s study, things actually happened. “There are real shocks and real money on the table,” she said. Subjects lying in an MRI scanner were given a choice: Either administer a painful electric shock to a person in another room and make one British pound (a little over a dollar and a half), or spare the other person the shock and forgo the money. Shocks were priced in a graded manner, so that the subject would earn less money for a light shock, and earn the whole pound for a severe shock. This same choice was given 20 times, and the person in the brain scanner could see a video of either the shockee’s hand jerk or both the hand jerk and the face grimace. (Although these shocks were real, they were pre-recorded.)
The brain scanners are supposed to shed light on the neuroscience of moral behavior.
Even though the findings are “a little bit chilling,” Wager says, “it’s important to know.” These kinds of studies can help scientists figure out how the brain dictates moral behavior. “There’s a real neuroscientific interest now in understanding the basis of compassion,” Wager says. “That’s something we are just starting to address scientifically, but it’s a critical frontier because it has such an impact on human life.”
Barretina bow: Not Exactly Rocket Science.
Cheap Talk 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 13, 2011 at 4:44 pm
J M Rao
In the end, the shocks were not real though. One or two paid participants were shocked, these images were recorded and played for effect.
Had the subjects walked into the lab with those on the video, or even walked into the lab separated by a two-way mirror, I see the experiment going another direction entirely. One reason, naturally, is this reduces social distance. Another reason is that it makes the whole thing seem less deceptive.
I also wish they had done a control in which participants shocked themselves for money.
April 14, 2011 at 6:34 am
Dan R
My objection is the experimental apparatus gets in the way. To the specific question of “Would you shock nonconsenting individuals in ways that are obviously painful for small amounts?”, my response would be “Not more than once”
However, in an actual experiment, it’s impossible to set things up that way. Given the restrictions on consent and ethical review, as a shocker, I know that either this researcher is destroying her career or the people on the receiving end of the shock have consented. They likely also have the ability to quit at any given time. I can’t see a review panel giving approval for continuing to shock people if after they had experienced the event and revised their understanding, they wanted to revoke their now informed consent (or interpret it as having never given it for something of that magnitude). Hence, no qualms about shocking as a participant, if it’s known that I’m in an experiment of some sort (and I likely had to sign a consent form).
How do you adjust for an implicit understanding of “how science works” among your shockers?
April 14, 2011 at 8:56 am
jeff
well put
April 14, 2011 at 6:55 am
Dan R
That should be “the structure of modern scientific research” rather than “how science works”.