Negative Consequences of Obedience to Authority
Obedience is one of the most basic tenants of social life. It is a requirement of any form of communal living (Milgram, 1963). Society itself is predicted upon existence. All political purpose is linked to individual action through way of obedience. Theory and observations of social interaction has led researchers to believe that obedience is, for many people, a deeply ingrained trait (Milgram 1963). While having the potential for educative purpose and promoting acts of charity, it can also cause the most ethical and moralistic to abandon their core values and seemingly close their eyes while following an unjustified authority.
Starting in the early 60's, Stanley Milgram began to investigate this destructive form of obedience. However, Milgram's classic experiments have come under severe attack. Some critics argue that their validity hinges on the acting ability of the learner and experimenter, and that most subjects were probably able to sense the unreality of the situation. Others question the relevance of the laboratory results to the larger world. Still others question the ethics of the basic experimental design.
Milgrams famous experiments entitled "obedience to authority" followed the aftermath of the Holocaust and the events leading up to World War II. The world was stunned with the happenings in Nazi German and their acquired surrounding territories that came out during the Eichmann Trials. Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was on trail for war crimes against humanity. The question was, "Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?
Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a series of studies on the Obedience to Authority. In the study, the subjects who answered an ad to be volunteers for an experiment for $4.50 an hour, were led to believe the purpose of the experiment was to study learning and memory. All subjects were then placed in a room in front of a shock generator and told that he was the "teacher". The "teacher then watched as the "learner", an actor, was led to a chair that strongly resembled a small electric chair and strapped into it. The teacher was then required by the experimenter to read word pairs to the learner. If the learner could not respond with the correct answer in a set period of time, the teacher would be told to administer increasing levels of shocks (from 15 to 450 volts and labelled from "slight shock" to Severe Shock - Danger" with the two highest voltages rated 'XXX'".
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 study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
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.
Milgram wielded with 40 males that were between the age ranges of 20 through 50. 15 men out of the 40 that were the subjects of this study were either skilled or unskilled workers, 16 men were white-collar sales or business men, and 9 were professional men. These subjects were preferred by newspaper ads and direct-mail application querying for the subjects to be rewarded participants for this study. With this research, Milgram uses two participants that was 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 destitute to a chair and wired up with electrodes that was 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. For each wrong answer that was given, the subject was to increase the level of shock on the generator. Withal, the results of this research was that every participant continued to at least the level of 300-volt. Yet, 14 participants eluded orders to be free before reaching the maximum voltage and 65% pursued the experimenter’s commands and reached to the top of
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
The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and were taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually shocked, the teachers believed they were inflicting real harm on these innocent people.... ... middle of paper ...
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
“Let Me Out Of Here, let me out, let me out” is just one of the many saying that was heard from the Learner during Milgram’s Experiment. Stanley Milgram a psychologist at Yale University, conducted experiments in 1961 focusing on an individual obedience to authority and their personal conscience. The goal of the experiment was to ration the effects of punishment concerning memory and learning. He began this by posting an advertisement in the paper of the New Heaven area requesting male participants between ages 20 and 50. The men who replied and participated in the experiment were paid 4.50 (McLeod) (Ferris p.140).
Obedience is the requirement of all mutual living and is the basic element of the structure of social life. Conservative philosophers argue that society is threatened by disobedience, while humanists stress the priority of the individuals' conscience. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, designed an experiment that forced participants to either violate their conscience by obeying the immoral demands of an authority figure or to refuse those demands. Milgram's study, reported in "The Perils of Obedience" suggested that under a special set of circumstances the obedience we naturally show authority figures can transform us into agents of terror or monsters towards humanity.
The experiment began with Milgram placing an advertisement in the local newspaper to recruit volunteers for his experiment. The experiment began with the introduction of the other participant, the other participant being an ally of Milgram’s. Afterwards, each participant would draw straws to decide which role they would take up, the “teacher” or the “learner.” However, the decision was always fixed so that the participant would always end up being the teacher. The learner would then be strapped to an electric chair by the teacher and would have a list of words read to him to be
This experiment is a test to see if people are naturally aggressive. Milgram does not believe that people are naturally aggressive. Although some people think people are naturally aggressive. Ordinary people can be part of a bad course of actions without having any anger toward then victim.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
Obedience is also seen by many as the path of least resistance; it isn’t as mentally demanding to follow someone’s orders. Assuming authority figures know what is best for everyone, it is simpler to do what we are told than to have to think for ourselves. But once we stop thinking for ourselves and begin following orders bli...
Through several of the concepts found within social psychology, there are explanations as to why I reacted and handled the situation of leaving Western Kentucky University the way that I did. However, for the purpose of this paper I will focus on the concepts of compliancy, affective forecasting, focalism, and immune neglect in order to explain my social situation.