# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
PUTRI NUR FATIHA BINTI MOHD ROZMI (AM2412017375)

# data[].attributes.headline
NORNASHIRAH ALYA BINTI NASHARUDIN (AM2412018182)

# data[].attributes.subject
NORNASHIRAH ALYA BINTI NASHARUDIN (AM2412018182)

# data[].attributes.headline
NUR AFIFAH AMIRA BINTI MOHD HAMIZUL (AM2412017377)

# data[].attributes.subject
NUR AFIFAH AMIRA BINTI MOHD HAMIZUL (AM2412017377)

# data[].attributes.headline
PUTRI NUR FATIHA BINTI MOHD ROZMI (AM2412017375)

# data[].attributes.subject
PUTRI NUR FATIHA BINTI MOHD ROZMI (AM2412017375)

# data[].attributes.headline
NUR FARISSA HAIREENHAZRIA BINTI HISHAMUDDIN (AM2412017796)

# data[].attributes.subject
NUR FARISSA HAIREENHAZRIA BINTI HISHAMUDDIN (AM2412017796)

# data[].attributes.headline
NURFITRAH AQILAH BINTI ZARIZIN (AM2412017376)

# data[].attributes.subject
NURFITRAH AQILAH BINTI ZARIZIN (AM2412017376)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
NORNASHIRAH ALYA BINTI NASHARUDIN (AM2412018182)

# data[].attributes.body
PUTRI NUR FATIHA BINTI MOHD ROZMI (AM2412017375)

# data[].attributes.body
NUR AFIFAH AMIRA BINTI MOHD HAMIZUL (AM2412017377)

# data[].attributes.body
NUR FARISSA HAIREENHAZRIA BINTI HISHAMUDDIN (AM2412017796)

# data[].attributes.body
NURFITRAH AQILAH BINTI ZARIZIN (AM2412017376)

# data[].attributes.body
NORNASHIRAH ALYA BINTI NASHARUDIN (AM2412018182)

# data[].attributes.body
NORNASHIRAH ALYA BINTI NASHARUDIN (AM2412018182)

# data[].attributes.body
Permulaan cerita "SMILE 2" (2024) :

Selepas Rose meninggal, Joel cuba hentikan sumpahan Entiti Senyum dengan membunuh penjenayah di depan orang lain mengakibatkan kesilapan sumpahan itu jatuh kepada Lewis Fregoli. Semasa Joel melarikan diri, dia juga dilanggar oleh lori.

Skye Riley bersedia kembali selepas kehilangan Paul dan isu penyalahgunaan dadah. Dia menyelinap keluar untuk mendapatkan ubat daripada rakan lamanya, Lewis. Di pangsapuri Lewis, dia melihat Lewis hilang kawalan dan membunuh dirinya sendiri dengan kejam.

Selepas disumpah, Skye mula berhalusinasi wajah orang tersenyum, menyebabkan mentalnya merosot. Skye menerima mesej amaran bahaya dari individu misteri semasa cuba menghubungi Gemma.

# data[].attributes.body
Perkembangan dalam filem "SMILE 2" (2024):

Di majlis amal, Skye hilang kawalan selepas teleprompter tergendala, lalu meluahkan kemarahan tentang kejayaannya. Ketika melarikan diri, dia mencederakan pengacara setelah ternampak Paul tersenyum di kalangan penonton.

Di sebuah bar, Skye bertemu dengan Morris, lelaki yang telah menghantar mesej kepadanya. Dia menjelaskan bahawa entiti itu membunuh abangnya, dan sumpahannya berpindah kepada saksi kematian.

Dia mencadangkan menghentikan jantung Skye buat sementara berdasarkan teori bahawa entiti parasit itu akan mati tanpa perumah. Skye menolak dan pergi selepas dikenali orang di bar.

# data[].attributes.body
Bintang pop terkenal Skye Riley bersedia kembali ke pentas dunia selepas setahun di pusat pemulihan akibat kemalangan yang meragut nyawa teman lelakinya, Paul Hudson. Skye mengalami gangguan misteri ketika bersedia untuk jelajahnya. Untuk redakan sakitnya, Skye cari ubat dari bekas pengedarnya, Lewis Fregoli.

Namun, di pangsapuri Lewis, Skye menyaksikan sendiri lelaki itu membunuh diri secara kejam sambil tersenyum. Sejak kejadian itu, Skye dihantui halusinasi orang yang tersenyum kepadanya, dan terpaksa berdepan dengan masa lalunya yang penuh penderitaan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smile 2 | Official Trailer (2024 Movie) - Naomi Scott, Lukas Gage

# data[].attributes.body
Konfliks/Perumitan dalam filem "SMILE 2" (2024) :

Semasa Skye mengalami gangguan mental yang di pangsapurinya, entiti dalam bentuk penari latar menyerangnya. Lengan gergasi menembusi kerongkongnya, membuatnya pengsan sebelum dihempas ke lantai.

Imbas kembali Skye rupanya sengaja melanggar kereta ketika bertengkar, mengakibatkan kematian Paul. Kemudian, Skye bertengkar dengan Elizabeth di pusat pemulihan, tiba - tiba Elizabeth tersenyum, pecahkan cermin lalu membunuh diri dengan serpihan kaca. Skye terkejut mendapati dia yang membunuh Elizabeth.

Skye melarikan diri dan berdamai semula dengan 'Gemma' sebelum mencuri kereta untuk bertemu Morris. Namun, selepas menerima panggilan daripada Gemma sebenar, dia sedar bahawa 'Gemma' bersamanya adalah Entiti.

# data[].attributes.body
Klimaks dalam filem "SMILE 2" (2024):

Di Pizza Hut terbiar, Morris bantu Skye hentikan jantungnya guna peti sejuk. Semasa dia beredar, entiti muncul sebagai Skye sewaktu kemalangan. Skye melawan dan menyuntik dirinya sendiri.

Dengan nada mengejek, entiti itu menyatakan bahawa Skye tidak lagi mengawal dirinya.

# data[].attributes.body
Pengakhiran dalam filem "SMILE 2" (2024):

Skye mendapati dirinya sedang membuat persembahan di Herald Square Garden. Dia sedar semuanya ilusi apabila ternampak Joshua, Darius, dan Elizabeth masih hidup dalam kalangan penonton.

Entiti menjelma sebagai Skye, mengoyakkan perutnya dan berubah menjadi makhluk besar.

Saat Skye hampir pengsan, entiti memasuki tubuhnya dan merasuknya, Skye bangun tersenyum dan membunuh diri dengan menikam matanya menggunakan mikrofon di hadapan penonton.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
NURFITRAH AQILAH BINTI ZARIZIN (AM2412017376)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
NUR AFIFAH AMIRA BINTI MOHD HAMIZUL (AM2412017377)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
NUR FARISSA HAIREENHAZRIA BINTI HISHAMUDDIN (AM2412017796)

# data[].attributes.body
Dalam Filem Smile 2, watak utama Skye Riley dihantui dengan trauma silam apabila dia terlibat dengan kemalangan kereta sehingga menyebabkan kematian teman lelakinya, Paul Hudson. Babak ini ditampilkan melalui adegan imbas kembali yang muncul pada sekitar minit ke-87. Disebabkan kejadian itu, Skye bergelut dengan rasa bersalah yang menjadi beban emosi utama sepanjang filem. Dalam minit ke-23 dan 13 saat, Skye turut menyaksikan kematian mengejut seorang lelaki yang secara tiba-tiba membunuh diri di hadapannya. Kejadian ini berlaku secara spontan dan tidak dijangka, menyebabkan Skye mengalami kejutan emosi yang ekstrem. Aksi bunuh diri itu berlaku dalam suasana tegang dan sunyi, menjadikan impaknya lebih mendalam secara psikologi. Skye yang menyaksikan insiden ini secara langsung mula menunjukkan simptom trauma saksi, seperti hilang fokus dan gangguan tidur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smile 2 (2024) - Skye and Paul's Car Crash

# data[].attributes.body
Skye Riley mula mengalami gangguan psikotik selepas dia menyaksikan kematian Lewis, seorang mengedar dadah yang mati secara mengejut dan tragis. Kematian Lewis menjadi titik permulaan bagi gangguan misteri yang membelenggu Skye. Entiti seram dengan senyuman menakutkan yang dikaitkan dengan kematian Lewis dikisahkan “berpindah” atau “melekat” pada Skye selepas peristiwa itu.

Skye menunjukkan gejala-gejala yang serupa dengan psikosis seperti halusinasi, perasaan dikejar, dan tidak dapat membezakan antara dunia sebenar dengan dunia yang direka oleh mindanya. Pada minit ke-60 dan 24 saat, Skye mula melihat orang-orang di sekelilingnya, termasuk wajah-wajah yang dikenali, tersenyum padanya dengan senyuman yang tidak wajar, kaku, dan menyeramkan. Mereka tidak bercakap, sebaliknya hanya merenungnya sambil tersenyum secara paksa, seolah-olah dikawal oleh satu kuasa yang tidak kelihatan. Mereka kemudian mula mendekatinya perlahan-lahan sebelum mengejarnya, menyebabkan Skye melarikan diri di dalam rumah dalam keadaan panik.

Menurut ahli falsafah, manusia memerlukan makna dalam kehidupan untuk terus bertahan. Seperti dalam filem ini, Skye gagal menemui tujuan hidupnya kerana sering berasa kosong walaupun hidupnya dipenuhi kemewahan dan perhatian. Disebabkan ini, dia menjadi semakin lemah dan mudah dikuasai oleh penderitaan batinnya sendiri. Kekosongan inilah yang memberi ruang kepada entiti jahat untuk ‘masuk’ dan semakin berkuasa dalam mengawal fikiran serta emosi Skye.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smile 2 (2024)_Hallway dancers FULL SCENE

# data[].attributes.body
Dalam sesi temu ramah pada minit ke-10, Skye mendedahkan bahawa dirinya sedang bergelut dengan tekanan dan stres akibat daripada tuntutan kerjaya dan harapan sekeliling. Ketidakmampuan untuk mengendalikan beban emosi ini mendorongnya mencari kelegaan sementara melalui alkohol dan dadah, sebagai satu bentuk pelarian daripada realiti yang menyeksakan.

Pada minit ke-90, dalam salah satu babak di hospital, Skye Riley berdepan pertengkaran hebat dengan ibunya, yang juga merupakan pengurus profesionalnya. Ketika Skye berada dalam keadaan lemah dan tertekan, ibunya masih mendesak agar dia meneruskan persembahan konsert yang akan datang. Dalam nada yang tegas dan dingin, ibunya mempersoalkan kewarasan Skye serta memberi tekanan supaya dia tidak memalukan atau menjejaskan reputasi mereka. Perbualan bertukar tegang apabila Skye menolak untuk menurut, dan menegaskan bahawa dia sedang menderita secara emosi, namun tidak dipedulikan. Ini menunjukkan bagaimana masalah kesihatan mental sering dianggap sebagai satu beban yang boleh mencemarkan imej dan kerjaya. Skye tidak diberi ruang untuk pulih, sebaliknya dipaksa untuk menyorokkan keadaannya demi kepentingan orang lain. Dari sudut falsafah psikologi, ini menunjukkan bagaimana seseorang dinafikan hak untuk menghadapi penderitaan secara jujur dan terbuka.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Skye’s mom death scene | Smile 2 2024 movie clip (HD)

# data[].attributes.headline
Adakah trauma dan gangguan mental memberi kesan dalam kehidupan? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Adakah trauma dan gangguan mental memberi kesan dalam kehidupan? 

# data[].attributes.body
Dari segi individu,kesan trauma dan gangguan mental dapat dilihat dalam aspek emosi dan kesihatan mental .Seseorang yang mengalami trauma mungkin akan mengalami simptom seperti kemurungan, kebimbangan melampau, fobia, dan mimpi ngeri yang berulang. Mereka juga boleh merasa terasing, hilang harga diri, serta menyalahkan diri sendiri atas apa yang berlaku. Emosi yang tidak stabil ini bukan sahaja menyeksa diri sendiri, malah boleh merosakkan hubungan dengan orang lain jika tidak ditangani dengan baik.

Dari segi masyarakat ,boleh menyebabkan kemerosotan produktiviti masyarakat yang harmoni . Apabila ramai masyarakat mengalami trauma dan gangguan mental, mereka akan hilang motivasi untuk bekerja atau belajar. Hal ini secara langsung menjejaskan prestasi sektor ekonomi, pendidikan dan sosial. Sebagai contoh, tempat kerja akan mengalami masalah kekurangan tenaga kerja yang berkualiti, manakala sekolah pula berdepan dengan pelajar yang tidak dapat fokus dan sering ponteng kerana tekanan dalaman.

Dari segi negara, ia akan melemahkan struktur sosial negara. Masyarakat yang tidak sihat dari segi mental akan sukar membuat keputusan yang waras, hilang kepercayaan kepada institusi, dan mudah terpengaruh dengan propaganda atau fahaman ekstrem. Dalam jangka panjang, ia boleh menyebabkan perpecahan sosial, ketidakstabilan politik dan kegagalan dalam pembangunan negara.

# data[].attributes.headline
Adakah penting sokongan pemulihan gangguan mental ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Adakah penting sokongan pemulihan gangguan mental ?

# data[].attributes.body
Dari segi individu ,sokongan penting untuk mengelakkan risiko yang lebih serius, termasuklah penyalahgunaan dadah, pengasingan sosial, dan cubaan membunuh diri. Apabila seseorang tidak menerima sokongan sewajarnya, mereka mungkin merasakan diri tidak berguna dan memilih jalan yang membahayakan. Namun, apabila mereka tahu ada pihak yang mengambil berat dan sedia membantu, mereka lebih cenderung untuk memilih kehidupan dan mencari penyelesaian.

Dari segi masyarakat,melalui sokongan ia dapat mewujudkan persekitaran yang selamat dan inklusif. Ramai individu yang mengalami gangguan mental berasa takut untuk mendapatkan bantuan kerana bimbang dipandang serong atau dijauhi. Apabila masyarakat bersikap terbuka, memahami dan tidak menghakimi,individu akan lebih berani tampil ke hadapan untuk mendapatkan rawatan.Ini penting untuk mengelakkan keadaan mereka menjadi lebih serius dan mengurangkan risiko tingkah laku merbahaya seperti pengasingan diri atau cubaan membunuh diri.

Dari segi negara,melalui sokongan ia dapat membentuk identiti nasional yang lebih inklusif dan berperikemanusiaan.Negara yang mementingkan kesihatan mental menunjukkan bahawa mereka menghargai kualiti hidup rakyat dan memahami keperluan emosi masyarakat.Ini akan meningkatkan kepercayaan rakyat terhadap kerajaan,memupuk semangat patriotisme, dan memperkukuh perpaduan nasional.

# data[].attributes.headline
Adakah pengabaian penderitaan dalaman lebih cenderung kerana tidak kelihatan ?

# data[].attributes.subject
Adakah pengabaian penderitaan dalaman lebih cenderung kerana tidak kelihatan ?

# data[].attributes.body
Dari segi individu,ada sesetengah daripada mereka sendiri tidak menyedari bahawa mereka sedang sakit, kerana tiada luka yang boleh dilihat. Mereka memaksa diri untuk "terus kuat", lalu memendam emosi tanpa memberi ruang untuk memproses atau sembuh.Ini menunjukkan betapa pentingnya kesedaran dalaman dan keadaan kesihatan mental agar seseorang individu dapat mengenali, menerima dan menangani penderitaan mereka dengan sihat.

Dari segi masyarakat,budaya yang menyanjung kekuatan luaran dan kejayaan material turut menyumbang kepada pengabaian penderitaan dalaman. Seseorang yang kelihatan berjaya dari segi kerjaya, pendidikan atau penampilan luaran sering dianggap tidak mempunyai masalah. Oleh itu, masyarakat cenderung menilai berdasarkan apa yang mereka nampak, tanpa menyelami apa yang sedang dilalui seseorang secara dalaman.

Dari segi negara,kekurangan pengiktirafan formal terhadap penderitaan dalaman dalam dasar dan sistem kesihatan awam menyumbang kepada pengabaian. Banyak negara, khususnya yang sedang membangun, masih memberikan tumpuan utama kepada kesihatan fizikal berbanding kesihatan mental. Akibatnya, peruntukan bajet untuk rawatan mental adalah rendah, tenaga kerja profesional seperti psikiatri dan kaunselor tidak mencukupi, dan kempen kesedaran masih terhad. Ini menyebabkan rakyat yang menderita secara dalaman tidak mendapat perhatian yang sewajarnya daripada sistem kerajaan.

# data[].attributes.body
Psikologi ialah bidang ilmu yang mengkaji minda, emosi dan tingkah laku manusia secara sistematik dan saintifik. Ia membantu kita memahami bagaimana individu berfikir, merasa, bertindak dan berinteraksi dengan persekitaran mereka. Perkataan "psikologi" berasal daripada bahasa Yunani, iaitu “psyche” yang bermaksud jiwa atau minda, dan “logos” yang bermaksud kajian. Maka, secara mudahnya, psikologi ialah kajian tentang jiwa dan tingkah laku.

Psikologi merangkumi pelbagai aspek, antaranya pemikiran (kognitif), emosi, keperibadian, perkembangan dan hubungan sosial. William James ialah tokoh utama psikologi dari Amerika Syarikat yang dikenali sebagai pengasas aliran fungsionalisme, iaitu pendekatan yang menekankan fungsi minda dan tingkah laku dalam membantu manusia menyesuaikan diri dengan persekitaran. Melalui kajian ini, ahli psikologi dapat mengenal pasti faktor dalaman dan luaran yang mempengaruhi kelakuan manusia. Psikologi juga diaplikasikan dalam pelbagai bidang seperti pendidikan, perubatan, kaunseling, pekerjaan dan pembangunan diri. Sebagai contoh, dalam bidang pendidikan, psikologi digunakan untuk memahami cara pelajar belajar dan mengatasi masalah tingkah laku. Secara keseluruhannya, psikologi membantu manusia mengenal diri sendiri dan orang lain dengan lebih mendalam, serta meningkatkan kesejahteraan mental dan sosial dalam kehidupan seharian.

# data[].attributes.body
Psikologi menurut pandangan Barat ialah satu bidang ilmu yang mengkaji minda, emosi dan tingkah laku manusia secara saintifik dan sistematik. Pendekatan ini berasaskan kajian empirikal, pemerhatian objektif dan ujian eksperimen untuk memahami bagaimana manusia berfikir, merasa dan bertindak dalam pelbagai situasi. Psikologi Barat menekankan kepentingan individu, kebebasan peribadi dan kemampuan untuk mengubah diri melalui proses rasional dan terapi. Antara tokoh penting dalam psikologi Barat termasuk Sigmund Freud (psikoanalisis), B.F. Skinner (behaviorisme), Carl Rogers (humanistik) dan Jean Piaget (kognitif), yang masing-masing menyumbang kepada pelbagai teori dan pendekatan dalam memahami manusia. Melalui kajian ini, psikologi Barat bertujuan untuk merawat gangguan mental, meningkatkan kesejahteraan diri dan membina kefahaman yang lebih mendalam terhadap tingkah laku manusia berdasarkan data dan bukti saintifik. Pendekatan ini telah banyak mempengaruhi sistem pendidikan, kesihatan mental, pekerjaan dan pembangunan peribadi dalam dunia moden.

# data[].attributes.body
Psikologi dari pandangan Timur lebih menekankan keseimbangan antara minda, tubuh dan roh, serta hubungan manusia dengan alam dan masyarakat sekeliling. Berbeza dengan pendekatan Barat yang bersifat saintifik dan individualistik, psikologi Timur banyak dipengaruhi oleh falsafah dan ajaran agama seperti Konfusianisme, Taoisme, Buddha dan Hindu. Dalam konteks ini, kesihatan mental dilihat sebagai hasil daripada keharmonian dalaman, disiplin diri, kawalan emosi dan hubungan yang baik dengan orang lain. Contohnya, dalam ajaran Buddha, penderitaan mental boleh diatasi melalui kesedaran (mindfulness), meditasi dan penghapusan keinginan berlebihan. Dalam Konfusianisme pula, kesejahteraan individu bergantung kepada moral, tanggungjawab sosial dan keharmonian keluarga. Oleh itu, psikologi Timur lebih menekankan nilai spiritual, kebijaksanaan dalaman dan pembangunan rohani sebagai asas kesejahteraan mental. Pendekatan ini juga menilai emosi sebagai sesuatu yang perlu dikawal dengan tenang dan bukan diluahkan secara bebas seperti dalam sesetengah pendekatan Barat. Kesimpulannya, psikologi Timur melihat manusia sebagai makhluk yang terikat dengan masyarakat, alam dan nilai-nilai moral, dan kesejahteraan mental dicapai melalui keharmonian hidup secara menyeluruh.

# data[].attributes.body
Psikologi membantu memahami diri sendiri, termasuk motivasi, emosi, dan cara mengatasi ketakutan. Ini memberi manfaat besar dalam kehidupan, hubungan dengan Allah, diri, dan orang lain. Psikologi juga mempelajari alasan di balik pikiran dan perilaku manusia. Dalam Islam, ilmu dan agama tidak dipisahkan—wahyu (al-Quran dan as-Sunnah) adalah kebenaran tertinggi, sedangkan ilmu pengetahuan adalah pelengkap selama tidak bertentangan dengan wahyu.Dari sudut pandang Islam, psikologi adalah kajian tentang jiwa dan proses mental serta emosional, baik yang tampak maupun tersembunyi. Tujuan utama hidup menurut QS. Az-Zariyat: 56 adalah beribadah kepada Allah, demi lulus ujian hidup dan kembali ke syurga. Dalam Islam, inti kehidupan manusia terletak pada jiwa yang memiliki tiga tahap: an-nafs al-ammarah bissu (jiwa yang cenderung pada kejahatan), an-nafs al-lawwama (jiwa yang mencela diri kerana dosa), dan an-nafs al-mutma’inna (jiwa yang tenang dan dekat dengan Allah), yang menjadi tujuan akhir setiap Muslim. Sepanjang hidup, jiwa manusia dipengaruhi oleh pelbagai faktor seperti genetik, lingkungan sosial, serta unsur ghaib seperti kehadiran Allah, malaikat, jin, dan kepercayaan kepada takdir dan akhirat. Oleh itu, seorang Muslim berjuang untuk membersihkan jiwanya dari hawa nafsu dan keraguan, membentuk keperibadian Islami, dan mencapai ketenangan batin. Dalam konteks ini, pencapaian jiwa yang tenang boleh dianggap sebagai bentuk aktualisasi diri menurut perspektif Islam, seiring dengan keharmonian spiritual dan hubungan erat dengan Pencipta.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bagaimanakah cara untuk mengatasi trauma? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Bagaimanakah cara untuk mengatasi trauma? 

# data[].attributes.body
Dari segi individu,langkah paling penting untuk mengatasi trauma ialah dengan mendapatkan bantuan profesional. Psikoterapi seperti kaunseling, terapi tingkah laku kognitif (CBT) dan terapi sokongan emosi boleh membantu individu memahami dan mengurus emosi yang mereka alami. Selain itu, amalan seperti senaman dan pemakanan seimbang juga dapat membantu menstabilkan kesihatan mental dan fizikal.

Dari segi masyarakat,penting untuk mewujudkan komuniti yang prihatin dan peka terhadap isu kesihatan mental. Pusat komuniti dan institusi keagamaan boleh memainkan peranan penting dengan menyediakan tempat selamat untuk individu berkongsi pengalaman mereka dan mendapatkan sokongan. Program sokongan komuniti seperti kumpulan sokongan trauma, aktiviti pemulihan dan pendidikan awam mengenai kesihatan mental harus dipertingkatkan.

Dari segi negara,kerajaan mempunyai tanggungjawab besar dalam menyediakan dasar, infrastruktur dan sumber untuk menangani trauma secara sistematik. Ini termasuk memperkukuhkan sistem kesihatan mental negara dengan menambah bilangan pakar psikologi dan kaunselor, serta meningkatkan akses kepada perkhidmatan kesihatan mental di kawasan bandar dan luar bandar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
NORNASHIRAH ALYA BINTI NASHARUDIN (AM2412018182)

# data[].attributes.body
Kesimpulannya, Smile 2 bukan sekadar sebuah karya seram, tetapi sebuah gambaran simbolik yang sarat dengan mesej sosial dan psikologi yang relevan dalam dunia moden. Filem ini memaparkan bagaimana trauma yang tidak diubati boleh menghantui seseorang dalam bentuk yang menakutkan dan merosakkan, bukan hanya secara fizikal tetapi lebih penting lagi secara mental dan emosi. Melalui simbol “senyuman” yang menyeramkan, Smile 2 mendedahkan kebenaran pahit tentang bagaimana manusia sering menyembunyikan kesakitan mereka di sebalik senyuman palsu, dan bagaimana masyarakat pula sering terlepas pandang terhadap penderitaan dalaman individu.

Filem ini secara tidak langsung mengkritik sikap masyarakat yang masih memandang ringan isu kesihatan mental, serta stigma yang menyebabkan ramai mangsa trauma takut untuk tampil mendapatkan bantuan. Ia juga mencerminkan betapa trauma boleh menjadi satu “kitaran” yang diwariskan secara tidak langsung, apabila mereka yang menderita gagal menyelesaikan konflik dalaman mereka lalu secara tidak sedar memindahkan beban itu kepada orang lain.

Smile 2 memberi gambaran jelas bahawa selagi trauma tidak dikenali, difahami dan dirawat, ia akan terus memburu mangsanya dan menghancurkan kehidupan mereka.Maka, filem ini membuka ruang untuk penonton berfikir secara kritis mengenai betapa pentingnya rawatan psikologi, sokongan sosial dan pendidikan tentang kesihatan mental. Ia menyeru kepada semua sama ada individu, keluarga, masyarakat atau negara untuk lebih peka dan bertanggungjawab dalam menangani trauma dan tekanan mental.

Dalam dunia yang semakin mencabar dan tidak menentu, mesej yang disampaikan melalui filem ini adalah amat penting dalam aspek kejujuran dalam menghadapi emosi, keberanian untuk mencari bantuan, dan empati daripada masyarakat adalah kunci untuk keluar daripada kegelapan trauma.

Intihannya, Smile 2 bukan hanya menyampaikan ketakutan melalui babak-babak menakutkan, tetapi juga menyampaikan realiti kehidupan yang menuntut perhatian dan tindakan. Ia menekankan bahawa kesihatan mental bukan isu remeh tetapi satu keperluan yang harus diutamakan dalam membina masyarakat yang sihat, prihatin dan berperikemanusiaan.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trauma secondary (Kemalangan di Genting Highlands)

# data[].attributes.subject
Trauma secondary (Kemalangan di Genting Highlands)

# data[].attributes.body
Trauma sekunder ialah tekanan psikologi yang dialami melalui interaksi dengan individu yang telah mengalami peristiwa traumatik, pendedahan kepada kisah-kisah menyedihkan atau menggangu daripada mangsa trauma, atau pendedahan kepada kekejaman antara manusia. Gejala trauma sekunder hampir sama dengan PTSD, termasuk mengalami semula kenangan traumatik secara tidak sengaja, mengelak daripada perkara yang mengingatkan trauma, perubahan negatif dalam pemikiran dan perasaan, serta keadaan berjaga-jaga yang berlebihan. Trauma sekunder telah dikaji dalam kalangan petugas kecemasan, jururawat dan doktor, pekerja kesihatan mental, serta anak-anak kepada ibu bapa yang mengalami trauma.

Dalam minit ke-23 dan 13 saat, Skye menyaksikan kematian mengejut seorang lelaki yang secara tiba-tiba membunuh diri di hadapannya. Kejadian ini berlaku secara spontan dan tidak dijangka, menyebabkan Skye mengalami kejutan emosi yang ekstrem. Aksi bunuh diri itu berlaku dalam suasana tegang dan sunyi, menjadikan impaknya lebih mendalam secara psikologi. Skye yang menyaksikan insiden ini secara langsung mula menunjukkan simptom trauma saksi, seperti hilang fokus dan gangguan tidur

Salah satu kes yang boleh dijadikan contoh untuk trauma saksi ialah tragedi kemalangan di Genting Highlands pada tahun 2013. Hasil analisis dan rekonstruksi terhadap kemalangan itu oleh Miros mendapati bas berkenaan dipandu laju semasa menuruni kawasan berbukit yang berselekoh sehingga menyebabkan ia hilang kawalan dan merempuh tembok penghadang sebelum terhumban dan melanggar batu besar di dalam gaung. Saksi awam dan anggota penyelamat mengalami tekanan perasaan, gangguan tidur, dan trauma akibat melihat kecederaan parah dan kematian secara langsung. Beberapa laporan menyebut tentang rawatan psikologi kepada saksi dan keluarga mangsa.

# data[].attributes.body
Seseorang boleh mengalami halusinasi apabila mempunyai tekanan kuat dari segi mental yang menyebabkan ia menghidap depresi atau skizofrenia. Gangguan psikotik ini menyebabkan seseorang individu sukar memebedakan antara realiti atau skenario yang dicipta oleh mindanya sendiri. Perasaan yang bercelaru dan susah untuk dikawal juga salah satu faktor yang boleh menjadikan seseorang mengalami gangguan psikotik.

Skye memperlihatkan tanda-tanda yang menyerupai episod psikosis, termasuk halusinasi, perasaan diburu, dan ketidakmampuan membezakan antara realiti dan ilusi ciptaan mindanya sendiri. Pada minit ke-60 dan 24 saat, dia mula melihat individu di sekelilingnya termasuk wajah-wajah yang dikenali, tersenyum kepadanya dengan senyuman yang kaku, tidak wajar, dan menakutkan. Mereka tidak mengeluarkan sepatah kata pun, hanya merenungnya dengan senyuman yang kelihatan dipaksa, seolah-olah dikawal oleh satu entiti yang tidak kelihatan. Perlahan-lahan, mereka mula mendekatinya, sebelum akhirnya mengejarnya, memaksa Skye melarikan diri dalam keadaan panik di dalam rumah

Berdasarkan kajian, Kaplan et al. (2010) menyatakan penyakit Skizofrenia ini dapat dilihat melalui perubahan tingkah laku yang ditunjukkan oleh pesakit. Secara umumnya, kecelaruan Skizofrenia juga dikenali sebagai psikosis. Individu yang mengalami penyakit mental kategori Skizofrenia yang kronik kebiasaannya gagal bertindak balas dengan baik di

dalam kehidupan sehariannya kerana sering berhalusinasi dan delusi.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tekanan sosial dari masyarakat (Eksperimen Milgram)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tekanan sosial dari masyarakat (Eksperimen Milgram)

# data[].attributes.body
Tekanan sosial adalah dampak langsung yang terjadi disebabkan seseorang individu ditekan dengan ekspetasi dan harapan daripada pelbagai pihak. Individu tersebut sukar merasa puas hati dan sering mengatakan bahawa dirinya tidak cukup baik bagi pandangan masyarakat menjadkan perilaku dan tindakan seseorang tersebut dipengaruhi oleh tekanan sosial.

Dalam sesi temu ramah pada minit ke-10, Skye berkongsi bahawa dirinya sedang menghadapi tekanan dan stres yang hebat akibat tuntutan kerjaya serta harapan tinggi daripada orang sekeliling. Ketidakupayaan untuk mengurus beban emosi ini mendorongnya mencari kelegaan sementara melalui penggunaan alkohol dan dadah, sebagai satu cara melarikan diri daripada realiti yang menyesakkan.

Antara contoh kajian yang telah dibuat untuk membuktikan tekanan sosial boleh mempengaruhi tindakan individu, iaitu kajian Milgram pada tahun 1963. Para peserta diberitahu bahawa mereka sedang membantu dalam satu eksperimen palsu, di mana mereka perlu memberikan kejutan elektrik kepada seorang pelajar. Kejutan elektrik ini sebenarnya tidak wujud, tetapi peserta diperdaya untuk mempercayai bahawa ia benar, dan tahap voltan kejutan tersebut semakin meningkat hingga ke tahap yang boleh membawa maut sekiranya benar-benar berlaku.

Eksperimen ini secara tidak disangka telah mendapati bahawa peratusan yang sangat tinggi daripada peserta sanggup mematuhi arahan sepenuhnya — dengan setiap peserta meningkatkan voltan hingga 300 volt, dan 65% daripada mereka meningkatkannya hingga 450 volt, iaitu tahap maksimum.

Milgram pertama kali menerangkan kajiannya dalam sebuah artikel pada tahun 1963 di Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, dan kemudiannya membincangkan penemuannya dengan lebih mendalam dalam bukunya pada tahun 1974, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the teacher (T) believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject is led to believe that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments. Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level.[1]

The Milgram experiment(s) on obedience to authority figures were a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, 40 men in the age range of 20 to 50 from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Participants were led to believe that they were assisting an unrelated experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a "learner". These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.

The experiment found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of subjects would fully obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts. Milgram first described his research in a 1963 article in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

The experiments began on August 7, 1961 (after a grant proposal was approved in July), in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to explain the psychology of genocide and answer the popular contemporary question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

While the experiment itself was repeated many times around the globe, with fairly consistent results, both its interpretations as well as its applicability to the Holocaust are disputed.

Milgram experiment advertisement, 1961. The US $4 advertised is equivalent to $39 in 2022.

Three individuals took part in each session of the experiment:

The "experimenter", who was in charge of the session.

The "teacher", a volunteer for a single session. The "teachers" were led to believe that they were merely assisting, whereas they were actually the subjects of the experiment.

The "learner", an actor and confederate of the experimenter, who pretended to be a volunteer.

The subject and the actor arrived at the session together. The experimenter told them that they were taking part in "a scientific study of memory and learning", to see what the effect of punishment is on a subject's ability to memorize content. Also, he always clarified that the payment for their participation in the experiment was secured regardless of its development. The subject and actor drew slips of paper to determine their roles. Unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher".

Next, the teacher and learner were taken into an adjacent room where the learner was strapped into what appeared to be an electric chair. The experimenter, dressed in a lab coat in order to appear to have more authority, told the participants this was to ensure that the learner would not escape. In a later variation of the experiment, the confederate would eventually plead for mercy and yell that he had a heart condition. At some point prior to the actual test, the teacher was given a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator in order to experience firsthand what the shock that the learner would supposedly receive during the experiment would feel like.

The teacher and learner were then separated so that they could communicate, but not see each other. The teacher was then given a list of word pairs that he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15- volt increments for each wrong answer (if correct, the teacher would read the next word pair). The volts ranged from 15 to 450. The shock generator included verbal markings that vary from "Slight Shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock."

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the learner was separated from the teacher, the learner set up a tape recorder integrated with the electroshock generator, which played previously recorded sounds for each shock level. As the voltage of the fake shocks increased, the learner began making audible protests, such as banging repeatedly on the wall that separated him from the teacher. In every condition the learner makes/says a predetermined sound or word. When the highest voltages were reached, the learner fell silent.

If at any time the teacher indicated a desire to halt the experiment, the experimenter was instructed to give specific verbal prods. The prods were, in this order:

1. Please continue or Please go on.

2. The experiment requires that you continue.

3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.

4. You have no other choice; you must go on.

Prod 2 could only be used if prod 1 was unsuccessful. If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, the experiment was halted after the subject had elicited the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.

The experimenter also had prods to use if the teacher made specific comments. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, "Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on." If the teacher said that the learner clearly wants to stop, the experimenter replied, "Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on."

Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock. He also reached out to honorary Harvard University graduate Chaim Homnick, who noted that this experiment would not be concrete evidence of the Nazis' innocence, due to the fact that "poor people are more likely to cooperate". Milgram also polled forty psychiatrists from a medical school, and they believed that by the tenth shock, when the victim demands to be free, most subjects would stop the experiment. They predicted that by the 300-volt shock is when the victim would refuse to answer, only 3.73 percent of the subjects would still continue, and they believed that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."

Milgram suspected before the experiment that the obedience exhibited by Nazis reflected of a distinct German character, and planned to use the American participants as a control group before using German participants, expected to behave closer to the Nazis. However, the unexpected results stopped him from conducting the same experiment on German participants.

Subjects were uncomfortable administering the shocks, and displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. These signs included sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, and digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures. 14 of the 40 subjects showed definite signs of nervous laughing or smiling. Every participant paused the experiment at least once to question it. Most continued after being assured by the experimenter. Some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating.

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

The original Simulated Shock Generator and Event Recorder, or shock box, is located in the Archives of the History of American Psychology.

Later, Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world, with similar results. Milgram later investigated the effect of the experiment's locale on obedience levels by holding an experiment in an unregistered, backstreet office in a bustling city, as opposed to at Yale, a respectable university. The level of obedience, "although somewhat reduced, was not significantly lower." What made more of a difference was the proximity of the "learner" and the experimenter. There were also variations tested involving groups.

Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that while the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages ranged from 28% to 91%, there was no significant trend over time and the average percentage for US studies (61%) was close to the one for non-US studies (66%).

The participants who refused to administer the final shocks neither insisted that the experiment be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections, when fellow psychologist Philip Zimbardo asked him about that point.

Milgram created a documentary film titled Obedience showing the experiment and its results. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments.

The Milgram Shock Experiment raised questions about the research ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress and inflicted insight suffered by the participants. Some critics such as Gina Perry argued that participants were not properly debriefed. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated; 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding). Many later wrote expressing thanks. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants. Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment wrote to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress:

While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority ... To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself ... I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience ...

On June 10, 1964, the American Psychologist published a brief but influential article by Diana Baumrind titled "Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's' Behavioral Study of Obedience.'" Baumrind's criticisms of the treatment of human participants in Milgram's studies stimulated a thorough revision of the ethical standards of psychological research. She argued that even though Milgram had obtained informed consent, he was still ethically responsible to ensure their well-being. When participants displayed signs of distress such as sweating and trembling, the experimenter should have stepped in and halted the experiment.

Milgram sparked direct critical response in the scientific community by claiming that "a common psychological process is centrally involved in both [his laboratory experiments and Nazi Germany] events." James Waller, chair of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Keene State College, formerly chair of Whitworth College Psychology Department, expressed the opinion that Milgram experiments do not correspond well to the Holocaust events:

1. The subjects of Milgram experiments, wrote James Waller (Becoming Evil), were assured in advance that no permanent physical damage would result from their actions. However, the Holocaust perpetrators were fully aware of their hands-on killing and maiming of the victims.

2. The laboratory subjects themselves did not know their victims and were not motivated by racism or other biases. On the other hand, the Holocaust perpetrators displayed an intense devaluation of the victims through a lifetime of personal development.

3. Those serving punishment at the lab were not sadists, nor hate-mongers, and often exhibited great anguish and conflict in the experiment, unlike the designers and executioners of the Final Solution, who had a clear "goal" on their hands, set beforehand.

4. The experiment lasted for an hour, with no time for the subjects to contemplate the implications of their behavior. Meanwhile, the Holocaust lasted for years with ample time for a moral assessment of all individuals and organizations involved.

In the opinion of Thomas Blass-who is the author of a scholarly monograph on the experiment ( The Man Who Shocked The World) published in 2004-the historical evidence pertaining to actions of the Holocaust perpetrators speaks louder than words:

My own view is that Milgram's approach does not provide a fully adequate explanation of the Holocaust. While it may well account for the dutiful destructiveness of the dispassionate bureaucrat who may have shipped Jews to Auschwitz with the same degree of routinization as potatoes to Bremerhaven, it falls short when one tries to apply it to the more zealous, inventive, and hate-driven atrocities that also characterized the Holocaust.

In a 2004 issue of the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1961 experiment at Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a "teacher", suspicious "that the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period."

In 2012 Australian psychologist Gina Perry investigated Milgram's data and writings and concluded that Milgram had manipulated the results, and that there was a "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." She wrote that "only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real and of those, 66% disobeyed the experimenter". She described her findings as "an unexpected outcome" that "leaves social psychology in a difficult situation."

In a book review critical of Gina Perry's findings, Nestar Russell and John Picard take issue with Perry for not mentioning that "there have been well over a score, not just several, replications or slight variations on Milgram's basic experimental procedure, and these have been performed in many different countries, several different settings and using different types of victims. And most, although certainly not all of these experiments have tended to lend weight to Milgram's original findings."

Milgram elaborated two theories:

The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch conformity experiments, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model.

The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow".

In his book Irrational Exuberance, Yale finance professor Robert J. Shiller argues that other factors might be partially able to explain the Milgram experiments:

[People] have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does not seem so. (In fact, the experimenter was indeed correct: it was all right to continue giving the "shocks"-even though most of the subjects did not suspect the reason.)

In a 2006 experiment, a computerized avatar was used in place of the learner receiving electrical shocks. Although the participants administering the shocks were aware that the learner was unreal, the experimenters reported that participants responded to the situation physiologically "as if it were real".

Another explanation of Milgram's results invokes belief perseverance as the underlying cause. What "people cannot be counted on is to realize that a seemingly benevolent authority is in fact malevolent, even when they are faced with overwhelming evidence which suggests that this authority is indeed malevolent. Hence, the underlying cause for the subjects' striking conduct could well be conceptual, and not the alleged 'capacity of man to abandon his humanity ... as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures."'

This last explanation receives some support from a 2009 episode of the BBC science documentary series , which involved replication of the Milgram experiment. Of the twelve participants, only three refused to continue to the end of the experiment. Speaking during the episode, social psychologist Clifford Stott discussed the influence that the idealism of scientific inquiry had on the volunteers. He remarked: "The influence is ideological. It's about what they believe science to be, that science is a positive product, it produces beneficial findings and knowledge to society that are helpful for society. So there's that sense of science is providing some kind of system for good."

Building on the importance of idealism, some recent researchers suggest the "engaged followership" perspective. Based on an examination of Milgram's archive, in a recent study, social psychologists Alexander Haslam, Stephen Reicher and Megan Birney, at the University of Queensland, discovered that people are less likely to follow the prods of an experimental leader when the prod resembles an order. However, when the prod stresses the importance of the experiment for science (i.e. "The experiment requires you to continue"), people are more likely to obey. The researchers suggest the perspective of "engaged followership": that people are not simply obeying the orders of a leader, but instead are willing to continue the experiment because of their desire to support the scientific goals of the leader and because of a lack of identification with the learner. Also a neuroscientific study supports this perspective, namely that watching the learner receive electric shocks does not activate brain regions involving empathic concerns.

Milgram's variations

In Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (1974), Milgram describes 19 variations of his experiment, some of which had not been previously reported.

Several experiments varied the distance between the participant (teacher) and the learner. Generally, when the participant was physically closer to the learner, the participant's compliance decreased. In the variation where the learner's physical immediacy was closest-where the participant had to hold the learner's arm onto a shock plate-30 percent of participants completed the experiment. The participant's compliance also decreased if the experimenter was physically farther away (Experiments 1-4). For example, in Experiment 2, where participants received telephonic instructions from the experimenter, compliance decreased to 21 percent. Some participants deceived the experimenter by pretending to continue the experiment.

In Experiment 8, an all-female contingent was used; previously, all participants had been men. Obedience did not significantly differ, though the women communicated experiencing higher levels of stress.

Experiment 10 took place in a modest office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, purporting to be the commercial entity "Research Associates of Bridgeport" without apparent connection to Yale University, to eliminate the university's prestige as a possible factor influencing the participants' behavior. In those conditions, obedience dropped to 47.5 percent, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Milgram also combined the effect of authority with that of conformity. In those experiments, the participant was joined by one or two additional "teachers" (also actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' peers strongly affected the results. In Experiment 17, when two additional teachers refused to comply, only four of 40 participants continued in the experiment. In Experiment 18, the participant performed a subsidiary task (reading the questions via microphone or recording the learner's answers) with another "teacher" who complied fully. In that variation, 37 of 40 continued with the experiment.

A virtual replication of the experiment, with an avatar serving as the learner

Around the time of the release of Obedience to Authority in 1973-1974, a version of the experiment was conducted at La Trobe University in Australia. As reported by Perry in her 2012 book Behind the Shock Machine, some of the participants experienced long-lasting psychological effects, possibly due to the lack of proper debriefing by the experimenter.

In 2002, the British artist Rod Dickinson created The Milgram Re-enactment, an exact reconstruction of parts of the original experiment, including the uniforms, lighting, and rooms used. An audience watched the four-hour performance through one-way glass windows. A video of this performance was first shown at the CCA Gallery in Glasgow in 2002.

A partial replication of the experiment was staged by British illusionist Derren Brown and broadcast on UK's Channel 4 in (2006).

Another partial replication of the experiment was conducted by Jerry M. Burger in 2006 and broadcast on the Primetime series Basic Instincts. Burger noted that "current standards for the ethical treatment of participants clearly place Milgram's studies out of bounds." In 2009, Burger was able to receive approval from the institutional review board by modifying several of the experimental protocols. Burger found obedience rates virtually identical to those reported by Milgram in 1961-62, even while meeting current ethical regulations of informing participants. In addition, half the replication participants were female, and their rate of obedience was virtually identical to that of the male participants. Burger also included a condition in which participants first saw another participant refuse to continue. However, participants in this condition obeyed at the same rate as participants in the base condition.

In the 2010 French documentary Le Jeu de la Mort ( The Game of Death), researchers recreated the Milgram experiment with an added critique of reality television by presenting the scenario as a game show pilot. Volunteers were given €40 and told that they would not win any money from the game, as this was only a trial. Only 16 of 80 "contestants" (teachers) chose to end the game before delivering the highest-voltage punishment.

The experiment was performed on Dateline NBC on an episode airing April 25, 2010.

The Discovery Channel aired the "How Evil are You?" segment of on October 30, 2011. The episode was hosted by Eli Roth, who produced results similar to the original Milgram experiment, though the highest-voltage punishment used was 165 volts, rather than 450 volts. Roth added a segment in which a second person (an actor) in the room would defy the authority ordering the shocks, finding more often than not, the subjects would stand up to the authority figure in this case.

Charles Sheridan and Richard King (at the University of Missouri and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively) hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a "cute, fluffy puppy" who was given real, albeit apparently harmless, electric shocks. Their findings were similar to those of Milgram: seven out of 13 of the male subjects and all 13 of the female subjects obeyed throughout. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment, and some openly wept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as the shocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects were more hesitant.

1. ^ Milgram, Stanley (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371-8. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1037/h0040525. PMID 14049516. S2CID 18309531. as PDF. Archived April 4, 2015, at the Wayback Machine

2. ^ Blass, Thomas (1999). "The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29 (5): 955-978. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x. as PDF Archived March 31, 2012, at the Wayback Machine

3. ^ Thomas Blass, The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram (Basic Books, 2009) p. 75

4. ^ Zimbardo, Philip. "When Good People Do Evil". Yale Alumni Magazine. Yale Alumni Publications, Inc.

5. Stanley Milgram, ^ Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper & Row, 1974) p. 123

6. ^ Blass, Thomas (1991). "Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (3): 398-413. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 7, 2016.

7. ^ Romm, Cari (January 28, 2015). "Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments". theatlantic.com. The Atlantic. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram's electric-shock studies showed that people will obey even the most abhorrent of orders. But recently, researchers have begun to question his conclusions-and offer some of their own.

8. ^ Milgram, Stanley (1965). "Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority". Human Relations. 18 (1): 57-76. doi:10.1177/001872676501800105. S2CID 37505499.

9. ^ Abelson, Robert P.; Frey, Kurt P.; Gregg, Aiden P. (April 4, 2014). [h ofttps://books.google.com/books?id=zFl4AgAAQBAJ&pg=PP1 "Chapter 4. Demonstration of Obedience to Authority"]. Experiments With People: Revelations From Social Psychology. Psychology Press. ISBN 9781135680145.

10. ^ Milgram, Stanley (1974). "The Perils of Obedience". Harper's Magazine. Archived from the original on December 16, 2010. Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority.

11. ^ Milgram films. Archived September 5, 2009, at the Wayback Machine Accessed October 4, 2006.

12. ^ Perry, Gina (2013). "Deception and Illusion in Milgram's Accounts of the Obedience Experiments". Theoretical & Applied Ethics, University of Nebraska Press. 2 (2): 79-92.

13. ^ Raiten-D'Antonio, Toni (September 1, 2010). Ugly as Sin: The Truth about How We Look and Finding Freedom from Self-Hatred. HCI. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-7573-1465-0.

14. ^ "Today in the History of Psychology [licensed for non-commercial use only] / June 10".

15. ^ Blass, Thomas (2013). "The Roots of Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiments and Their Relevance to the Holocaust" (PDF). Analyse und Kritik.net. p. 51. Archived from the original (PDF file, direct download 733 KB) on October 29, 2013.

16. ^ Dimow, Joseph (January 2004). "Resisting Authority: A Personal Account of the Milgram Obedience Experiments". Jewish Currents. Archived from the original on February 2, 2004.

17. ^ Perry, Gina (April 26, 2012). Behind the Shock Machine: the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. The New Press. ISBN 978-1921844553.

18. ^ Perry, Gina (2013). "Deception and Illusion in Milgram's Accounts of the Obedience Experiments". Theoretical & Applied Ethics. 2 (2): 79-92. ISSN 2156-7174.

19. ^ Perry, Gina (August 28, 2013). "Taking A Closer Look At Milgram's Shocking Obedience Study". All Things Considered (Interview). Interviewed by NPR Staff. NPR.

20. ^ Russell, Nestar; Picard, John (2013). "Gina Perry. Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments". Book Reviews. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 49 (2): 221-223. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21599.

21. Milgram, S. (1974), ^ Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, London: Tavistock Publications.

22. ^ Nissani, Moti (1990). "A Cognitive Reinterpretation of Stanley Milgram's Observations on Obedience to Authority". American Psychologist. 45 (12): 1384-1385. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1384. Archived from the original on February 5, 2013.

23. ^ Shiller, Robert (2005). Irrational Exuberance (2nd ed.). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 158.

24. ^ Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, et al. (2006). Rustichini A (ed.). "A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments". PLOS ONE. 1 (1): e39. Bibcode:2006PLoSO...1...39S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000039. PMC . PMID 17183667.}

25. ^ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Birney, Megan E. (September 1, 2014). "Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science". Journal of Social Issues. 70 (3): 473-488. doi:10.1111/josi.12072. hdl:10034/604991. ISSN 1540-4560.

26. ^ Haslam, S Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D; Birney, Megan E (October 1, 2016). "Questioning authority: new perspectives on Milgram's 'obedience' research and its implications for intergroup relations" (PDF). Current Opinion in Psychology. 11: 6-9. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.007. hdl:10023/10645.

27. ^ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D. (October 13, 2017). "50 Years of "Obedience to Authority": From Blind Conformity to Engaged Followership". Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 13 (1): 59-78. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710.

28. ^ Cheetham, Marcus; Pedroni, Andreas; Antley, Angus; Slater, Mel; Jäncke, Lutz; Cheetham, Marcus; Pedroni, Andreas F.; Antley, Angus; Slater, Mel (January 1, 2009). "Virtual milgram: empathic concern or personal distress? Evidence from functional MRI and dispositional measures". Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 3: 29. doi:10.3389/neuro.09.029.2009. PMC . PMID 19876407.

29. ^ Milgram, old answers. Accessed October 4, 2006. Archived April 30, 2009, at the Wayback Machine

30. ^ Elliott, Tim (April 26, 2012). "Dark legacy left by shock tactics". Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016.

31. ^ History Will Repeat Itself: Strategies of Re-enactment in Contemporary (Media) Art and Performance, ed. Inke Arns, Gabriele Horn, Frankfurt: Verlag, 2007

32. ^ "Fake torture TV 'game show' reveals willingness to obey". March 17, 2010. Archived from the original on March 23, 2010.

33. ^ "Sheridan & King (1972) - Obedience to authority with an authentic victim, Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association 7: 165-6" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 27, 2018.

34. ^ Malin, Cameron H.; Gudaitis, Terry; Holt, Thomas; Kilger, Max (2017). Deception in the Digital Age. Elsevier. ISBN 9780124116399.

35. ^ Riggio, Ronald E.; Chaleff, Ira; Lipman-Blumen, Jean, eds. (2008). The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. J-B Warren Bennis Series. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780470186411.

36. ^ Gomez, Jerome (2017). Batch '81: The Making of a Mike de Leon Film. Singapore: Asian Film Archive. p. 42.

Blass, Thomas (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-7382-0399-7.

Levine, Robert V. (July-August 2004). "Milgram's Progress". American Scientist. Archived from the original on February 26, 2015. Book review of The Man Who Shocked the World

Miller, Arthur G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York: Praeger.

Ofgang, Erik (May 22, 2018). "Revisiting the Milgram Obedience Experiment conducted at Yale". New Haven Register.

Parker, Ian (Autumn 2000). "Obedience". (71). Archived from the original on December 7, 2008. Includes an interview with one of Milgram's volunteers, and discusses modern interest in, and scepticism about, the experiment.

Tarnow, Eugen (October 2000). "Towards the Zero Accident Goal: Assisting the First Officer Monitor and Challenge Captain Errors". Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education & Research. 10 (1).

Wu, William (June 2003). "Compliance: The Milgram Experiment". Practical Psychology.

Perry, Gina (2013). Behind the shock machine : the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments (Rev. ed.). New York [etc.]: The New Press. ISBN 978-1-59558-921-7.

Saul McLeod (2017). "The Milgram Shock Experiment". Simply Psychology.

"The Bad Show" (Audio Podcast with transcript). Radiolab. WNYC. January 9, 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Milgram experiment(s) on obedience to authority figures were a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, 40 men in the age range of 20 to 50 from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience.

# data[].attributes.headline
Meningkatkan kesedaran masyarakat tentang masalah kesihatan mental

# data[].attributes.subject
Meningkatkan kesedaran masyarakat tentang masalah kesihatan mental

# data[].attributes.body
Filem ini menyedarkan masyarakat bahawa trauma dan gangguan psikologi adalah isu sebenar yang boleh menghancurkan kehidupan seseorang. Watak utama dalam filem ini menunjukkan bagaimana trauma yang tidak ditangani boleh menjelma dalam bentuk halusinasi, ketakutan melampau, dan gangguan pemikiran. Melalui gambaran ini, penonton dapat memahami bahawa masalah kesihatan mental bukan rekaan atau alasan, tetapi memerlukan rawatan, perhatian, dan empati daripada pelbagai pihak.

# data[].attributes.headline
Menghapuskan pandangan negatif terhadap masalah mental

# data[].attributes.subject
Menghapuskan pandangan negatif terhadap masalah mental

# data[].attributes.body
Filem ini secara halus mengubah pandangan umum masyarakat yang selama ini cenderung melihat pesakit mental sebagai lemah atau bermasalah. Watak utama dalam Smile 2 adalah individu profesional yang kelihatan normal di luar, tetapi sedang berperang dengan tekanan batin yang berat. Filem ini menunjukkan bahawa tekanan sosial seperti keperluan untuk sentiasa kelihatan kuat, tidak menunjukkan emosi, dan menjaga reputasi boleh membuatkan seseorang menjadi semakin tertekan. Apabila masyarakat mula sedar bahawa tekanan seperti ini adalah salah satu sebab mengapa ramai orang takut untuk berkongsi masalah mereka, barulah lebih ramai yang akan menunjukkan sikap memahami dan memberi sokongan. Ia menggalakkan kita semua supaya lebih terbuka, berhenti menghukum, dan mula memberikan sokongan kepada orang yang sedang mengalami masalah emosi.

# data[].attributes.headline
Menggugat ketenangan dan keresahan dalam realiti kehidupan

# data[].attributes.subject
Menggugat ketenangan dan keresahan dalam realiti kehidupan

# data[].attributes.body
Filem ini membangkitkan perasaan takut dan cemas dalam kalangan penonton. Ia menonjolkan jenis ketakutan yang berkait dengan pengalaman trauma dalam kehidupan sebenar. Ia menunjukkan bahawa bukan semua ketakutan datang dari luar, tetapi boleh datang dari dalam diri kita sendiri seperti kenangan buruk dan emosi yang dipendam terlalu lama. Ketakutan yang ditunjukkan ini memberi kesan kepada pemikiran penonton. Ia membuatkan mereka berfikir semula tentang kesihatan mental diri sendiri dan orang sekeliling. Penonton mula sedar bahawa mungkin ada orang di sekeliling mereka yang sedang menderita secara senyap.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
NUR FARISSA HAIREENHAZRIA BINTI HISHAMUDDIN (AM2412017796)

# data[].attributes.headline
KESAN FILEM TERHADAP PENONTON / MASYARAKAT

# data[].attributes.subject
KESAN FILEM TERHADAP PENONTON / MASYARAKAT

# data[].attributes.headline
KESAN FILEM TERHADAP PENONTON / MASYARAKAT

# data[].attributes.subject
KESAN FILEM TERHADAP PENONTON / MASYARAKAT

# data[].attributes.body
NUR FARISSA HAIREENHAZRIA BINTI HISHAMUDDIN (AM2412017796)