Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Traits of Adolf hitler
Conclusion of hitler psychological traits
Traits of Adolf hitler
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Traits of Adolf hitler
Social psychology, as a discipline, has given relatively little attention to the problem of evil in society, and those discussions in this field that do exist typically regard evil actions as only varieties of aggression without any characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of intentional mistreatment of others (Berkowitz, 1999). Because of the field's situationistic perspective emphasizing the individual's susceptibility to the power of the immediate situation, social psychologists generally view the fairly high levels of obedience to authority displayed in Milgram's classic experiment as the paradigmatic example of evil behavior (Berkowitz, 1999). Reading about the work of Ross and Nisbett, 1991 (as cited in Berkowitz, 1999, p. 247) stated that “social psychologists, by and large, do not think of evil actions as the product of evil personalities. Rather, they emphases the immediate situation's great influence on thoughts, feelings, and behavior, they tend to minimize the role of individual dispositions.”
Remembering back to the the time of the Holocaust, an event that went down as one of the biggest human mass genocides of all time. Blass (1991) questions the exact parallels between the actions of Milgram's subjects and those of the Nazis under Hitler during the Holocaust and to attempts at understanding its causes. According to Dörner and Güss (2011), “regarding Hitler as a human being means that Hitler is not completely strange and different, someone who cannot be understood. It means that we can find Hitler in ourselves, through such behavior tendencies: the misattribution of failure, the loss of touch with reality, the affirmative perception, the tendency to feel powerful through decisive actions” (p. 48)...
... middle of paper ...
...dhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Peace And Conflict: Journal Of Peace Psychology, 16(3), 295-319. doi:10.1080/10781911003773530
Navarick, D. J. (2012). HISTORICAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MILGRAM PARADIGM: TESTS OF AN EXPERIMENTALLY DERIVED MODEL OF DEFIANCE USING ACCOUNTS OF MASSACRES BY NAZI RESERVE POLICE BATTALION 101. Psychological Record, 62(1), 133-154.
Perry, Gina. 2012. Behind the Shock Machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments , Melbourne and nLondon: Scribe Books. New York: The New Press, 2013.
Rigby, K. K., & Rump, E. E. (1982). Attitudes toward authority and authoritarian personality characteristics. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 116(1), 61-72. doi:10.1080/00224545.1982.9924395
Rose, L., & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
According to Milgram, after completing the experiment, all of his subjects were informed of its true purpose, which was to find out how much pain the average person would inflict on another person when placed under authority (Milgram 78). Therefore, as Gary Sturt, author of “Behavioral Study of Obedience” states, all of the subjects were participating in an experiment without their full consent being offered to the experiment holders (Sturt). Additionally, most of the subjects were affected by the stressful nature of the experiment. A debriefing session after their completion of Milgram’s experiment was held for all of the subjects; however, as Susan Krauss Whitbourne Ph.D., author of "The Secrets Behind Psychology 's Most Famous Experiment," states, there is a “lack of proper attention given to the phase of the experiment called ‘debriefing’” (Whitbourne). Saul McLeod, author of “The Milgram Experiment,” further and more effectively explains Milgram’s attempt of ensuring the subjects’ well-being. McLeod claims that in addition to debriefing sessions after the conclusion of the experiment, all subjects were “followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm” (McLeod). Although mentioned briefly, an effective portrayal of Milgram’s debriefing sessions is not offered through his text. As Baumrind points out in her essay, the
In July of 1961, Stanley Milgram began his experiment of obedience. He first published an article, Behavioral Study of Obedience, in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 1963. This article, Behavioral Study of Obedience, is what this paper will be critiquing. He then wrote a book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, in 1974 discussing his results in more detail. Milgram’s inspiration was the World War II and Adolf Hitler. During World War II, millions of innocent people were killed in a very organized manor. Milgram (1963) compares the organization and accuracy of the deaths, to the “efficiency as the manufacture of appliances” (p. 371). Milgram (1963) defines obedience as “the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose” (p. 371). Milgram acknowledges that it may only take one person to come up with an idea, such as Hitler coming up with a way to eradicate the Jews, but would take an
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
With this research, Milgram uses two participants that were a confederate and an actor who looked authoritative. As each participant participated in the experiment, each one was to draw pieces of paper from a hat that determined if they were either a teacher or a learner. Yet, the drawing was manipulated so that the subject would become a teacher and the associate was the learner. The learner was confined to a chair and wired up with electrodes that were attached to the shock generator in the adjacent room. There were questions that were proposed to the learner and for every answer that was wrong, the subject was to conduct an electric shock.
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority figures. Milgram is well aware of his audience and organization throughout his article, uses quotes directly from his experiment and connects his research with real world examples to make his article as effective as possible. Stanley Milgram selected 40 college participants, aged 20-50, to take part in the experiment at Yale University. Milgram says, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measureable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim” (632). Although the 40 men or women thought that they were in a drawing to see who would be the “teacher” and the “learner,” the drawing was fixed.
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
In “ Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments On Obedience” by Diana Baumrind, and in “Obedience” by Ian Parker, the writers claim that Milgram’s Obedience is ethically wrong and work of evil because of the potential harm that the subjects of the experiment had. While Baumrind’s article focused only on the Subjects of the experiment, Parker’s article talked about both immediate and long term response to experiment along with the reaction of both the general public and Milgram’s colleagues, he also talks about the effect of the experiment on Milgram himself. Both articles discuss has similar points, they also uses Milgram’s words against him and while Baumrind attacks Milgram, Parker shows the reader that experiment
Milgram’s studies on obedience to authority as well as obedience under extreme stress, paved a way to understanding the human psyche and how we handle choices we do not understand. As human beings we are given from a very young age a set of morals and standards we choose to live by. We see our parent’s successes and failures and we base the choices we make on what made them happy, and what will in the long run, bring us the same joy. From the beginning of the experiment you can see the pressure he starts everyone under. Where he chooses to begin his testing tells you a lot about what he was wanting them all to feel. A very rundown, dark, empty building with prison cell like rooms with sparse walls. Pipes showing and most likely a musty smell
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
Stanley Milgram’s (1963), Behavioral Study of Obedience measured how far an ordinary subject will go beyond their fundamental moral character to comply with direction from authority to punish another person, and at what point would they refuse to obey and end their participation.
pp. 371-377, 2008. Benjamin Jr., Ludy T. & Simpson, Jeffrey A. The Power of the Situation: The Impact of Milgram’s Obedience Studies on Personality and Social Psychology. From an American Psychologist.
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
...T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A Historical Perspective on the Milgram Obedience Experiments. American Psychological Association, 64(1), 37-45.
Crisp, R, J. Turner, R, N. (2007). Essential Social Psychology. Sage Publications Limited. London. (UK). First Edition.