The following is from the Batson, et al. (1981) paper.
After the subject finished reading the detailed instructions, the experimenter handed her a copy of the personal values and interest questionnaire administered at the screening session, explaining that this copy had been filled out be Elaine and would provide information about her that might be of help in forming an impression. Elaine’s questionnaire was prepared in advance so that it reflected values and interests that were either very similar or very dissimilar to those the subject had expressed on her questionnaire. In the similar-victim condition, Elaine’s responses to six items that had only two possible answers (e.g., “If you had a choice, would you prefer living in a rural or an
urban setting?”) were identical to those the subject had given; her responses to the other eight items were similar
but not identical (e.g., “What is your favorite magazine?” Answers: Cosmopolitan for the subject, Seventeen for Elaine; Time for the subject, Newsweek for Elaine). In the dissimilar-victim condition, Elaine’s responses to the six two-answer items were the opposite of those the subject had given, and her responses to the other eight were clearly different (e.g., Cosmopolitan for the subject, Newsweek for Elaine).
I think this is pretty easily distinguished, though. In Milgram, the subject was in a position to prevent the “victim”’s extreme pain and possible death, at no cost to the subject. In Batson, the subject is in a position to prevent the “victim” from receiving shocks by volunteering to receive those shocks themselves. (Yes, the victim does claim to be unusually averse to shocks, but there’s no real reason for the subject to believe that claim.) I see “help someone by hurting yourself in equal measure” as being a very different ethical proposition from “help someone at no cost to yourself”.
The following is from the Batson, et al. (1981) paper.
I’ll email the paper to anyone who PMs me.
Magazines and where she lived produced that difference? Oh my stars. I’m surprised this experiment doesn’t get cited as much as Milgram.
I think this is pretty easily distinguished, though. In Milgram, the subject was in a position to prevent the “victim”’s extreme pain and possible death, at no cost to the subject. In Batson, the subject is in a position to prevent the “victim” from receiving shocks by volunteering to receive those shocks themselves. (Yes, the victim does claim to be unusually averse to shocks, but there’s no real reason for the subject to believe that claim.) I see “help someone by hurting yourself in equal measure” as being a very different ethical proposition from “help someone at no cost to yourself”.
Those details are pretty much exactly the sort I was looking for. Legwork very much appreciated.