Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Short summary of stanley milgram experiment
Stanley milgram experiment review
Stanley milgram experiment review
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Short summary of stanley milgram experiment
Stanley Milgram was a Yale psychologist that organized diverse studies during his career. In 1961, at the age of twenty-seven he conducted his most controversial study on obedience. In light of the recent Holocaust, Milgram wanted to comprehend how twelve million people were put to death simply by the orders from their commanders. The original accepted explanation was the popular notion of the authoritarian personality, but Milgram suspected the explanation to be too confined. He supposed the explanation to harmful obedience was not in the strength of personality but to a greater extent in the strength of the situation. Any influential circumstance could cause any normal person to disregard moral convictions and on command perform brutality. To evaluate his hypothesis, he organized a phony, but convincingly real shock machine, then ordered the volunteers to administer fake levels of electrical shock to actors who played along (Slater 32). The writer supports the controversy, but believes the study was ethical because it influenced the development of internal standards to regulate methods in research within psychology, produced inflicted insight experienced by participants, and it was vital for defeating the possible legitimacy risk associated with the studies of cognizant participants. Deceit is the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misleading the truth. Deception has always been a part of psychology and researchers have always determined that in the majority of cases the deceptions are harmless or minimal, yet they still exist. As a result of Mailgram’s experiment, deceptive research operations are now under harsh examination all across the discipline. It is obvious that Milgram’s intent was not to revol... ... middle of paper ... ...obert J.. Ethics and regulation of clinical research. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Urban & Schwarzenberg, 1986. Print. Russell, Nestar John Charles. "Milgram's Obedience To Authority Experiments: Origins And Early Evolution." British Journal Of Social Psychology 50.1 (2011): 140-162. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 12 May 2014. Russell, Nestar J. C., and Robert J. Gregory. "Spinning An Organizational “Web Of Obligation”? Moral Choice In Stanley Milgram’S “Obedience” Experiments." American Review Of Public Administration 41.5 (2011): 495-518. Business Source Complete. Web. 12 May 2014. Slater, Lauren. Opening Skinner's box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print. Weiten, Wayne. Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. 9th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
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.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
Bibliography 3rd edition Psychology (Bernstein-Stewart, Roy, Srull, & Wickens) Houghton Mifflin Company Boston, Massachusetts 1994
In finding that people are not naturally aggressive. Milgram now alters the experiment to find out why do people act the way they do. He compiled the experiment to answer, why do people obey authority, even when the actions are against their own morals.
Weiten, W., Lloyd, Margaret A., Dunn, Dana S., Yost-Hammer, Elizabeth. (2009). Psychology Applied to Modern Life; Adjustment in the 21st Century. (9th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
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 American Psychologist. Vol. 64 (1), pp.12-18, 2009.
Lloyd, Margaret A., Dana S. Dunn, and Elizabeth Y. Hammer. Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. By Wayne Weiten. 9th ed. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 75-137. Print.
Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987; 317(3): 141-145
Nevid, J.S., & Rathus, S.A. (2005). Psychology and the challenges of life: Adjustment in the new millenium (9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Weiten, W., & Lloyd, M. A. (2006). Psychology of Applied Modern Life. Canada: Thomson and Wadsworth.