Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist, conducted an experiment in 1963 about human obedience that was deemed as one of the most controversial social psychology experiments ever (Blass). Ian Parker, a writer for the New Yorker and Human Sciences, and Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, responded to Stanley Milgram’s experiment. These articles represent how the scientific community reviews and scrutinizes each other’s work to authenticate experiment results. Baumrind focuses on the moral and ethical dilemma while, Parker focuses more on the experiment’s actual application.
The experiment’s original intent was to determine if society would simply obey to authority when put under pressure by an authoritative figure. Milgram put a twist on the experiment asking the age-old question of, “if the Germans during WWII were simply obeying to authority when carrying out the Holocaust or were they all acting on their own”(Blass). The test subject, or teacher, would administer electric shocks to the learner, a paid actor, when the learner incorrectly answered the word pairings. The teacher thought the learner was receiving electric shocks when in reality the learner was not receiving any shocks. An instructor, the authoritative figure, was sitting behind the teacher reassuring the teacher that the shocks may be painful but would not inflict permanent damage. Throughout the experiment, the teacher can be seen looking back towards the instructor for permission on whether to continue or stop (ABC).The teacher instructed the learner to continue even when the learner cried out in pain and begged for the experiment to stop (ABC). Sixty-five percent of the time, the teacher continued until he administered the ...
... middle of paper ...
... Baumrind’s idea that if Milgram were to fully disclose the experiment would it still produces the same results as the original experiment? Milgram does arrange for a friendly meeting between the teacher and the learner after the experiment. The meeting was supposed to relieve all tensions that are burdened upon the teacher throughout the experiment. Baumrind does not believe that this simple meeting between the teacher and learner was enough to relieve all tensions of the experiment (227). She simply suggests that Milgram should have offered a psychiatric evaluation or therapy to the patients after participating in the experiment (227). The ethical treatment that Milgram showed towards his patients denied him his APA membership. “The ethical furor preyed on Milgram’s mind – in the opinion of Arthur G. Miller, it may have contributed to his premature death…”(234).
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.
In her excerpt, Baumrind discusses the potential dangers of the aftereffects on the participants of the experiment. On many occasions she suggests that these people are subjects of a cruel and unethical experiment, and suffer from harm to their self-image and emotional disruption (227). She also calls Milgram’s experiment a “game” (Baumrind 225); this illustrates her negative outtake on the experiment which is seen throughout the article. On the contrary, Parker discusses the aftereffects on Milgram himself. He expresses how the experiment, although it shows light to what extent of obedience a person may travel, ruined Milgram’s reputation. Parker also cites many notable authors and psychologists and their reactions to Milgram’s experiment. Despite their differences, Baumrind and Parker are able to find common ground on a few issues concerning the Milgr...
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...
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
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.
Both Parker and Baumrind agree that placing people through such stress as Milgram did could play into serious mental and emotional problems later on in life. Throughout both of the articles, both authors draw from outside sources to effectually back up and prove their main points. Martyn Shuttleworth of Explorable states, in agreement with Parker and Baumrind, that since Milgram conducted his experiment, there has been a corporate reform in the way psychological experiments may take place (Shuttleworth). Baumrind and Parker both agree that what Milgram did was quite unethical, citing the American Psychology Association (APA) to prove that what he did could not be replicated in a modern scientific society (Parker 97, Baumrind 93). One of the most telling factors of the stress level in the tests were the participants mannerisms. Some sweated profusely while others sat and nervously laughed to themselves. Throughout the course of Milgram 's test, three teachers broke down and went into a state of uncontrollable seizure (McLeod). Events like these, state Baumrind and Parker, are reasons why Milgrams Experiment could not have taken place today. While both authors effectively substantiate the same claim, Parker draws upon many sources and uses factual evidence, while Baumrind mainly uses emotional appeals to prove the case of the
In Milgram's opinion the teachers continued because they were told they were not responsible for whatever happens to the learner, he states “Experimenter: i'm responsible for anything that happens to him ( Milgram 81).” Milgram says, “Teachers were the ones inflicting pain but still did not feel responsible for their act ( Milgram 83).” Also Milgram says “ they often liked the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter (Milgram 86).” However Baumrind believes that the teachers only followed orders because they trusted to experimenter. Baumrind states, “The subject has the right to expect that the Psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively ( Baumrind 94).” When Baumrind tells the readers this she means that she thinks the teachers believe that that the experimenter would not let anything bad happen to the
Dalrymple starts his essay by stating that some people view opposition to authority to be principled and also romantic (254). The social worker Dalrymple mentions on the airplane with him is a prime example that certain people can be naturally against authority, but she quickly grants authority to the pilot to fly the plane (255). Dalrymple also mentions his studies under a physician and that Dalrymple would listen to her because she had far greater expanse of knowledge than him (256). Ian Parker writes his essay explaining the failed logic with Stanley Milgram’s experiment and expounds on other aspects of the experiment. One of his points is the situation’s location which he describes as inescapable (238). Another focus of Parker’s article is how Milgram’s experiment affected his career; the experiment played a role in Milgram’s inability to acquire full support from Harvard professors to earn tenure (234).
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
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.
n hypothesis of the experiment is that the group containing four members will perform better than the group containing two members. This is the foundation from which we have conducted our experiment.
Such as in The Crucible when Mary tries to convince the court that the other girls are lying to the court about the many people accused for witchcraft. She, in the end, flees from John Proctor and falsely proclaims to the people of Salem that he is a witch himself because she knows she is now vulnerable to being arrested for lying to the court. No matter what time period this is going on. The Milgram Experiment is a demonstration that shows people will obey authority simply because they are the authority and won't do the right thing because the authority told them what the right thing is. countless teachers are put to the test. The experimenter would instruct the teacher, which is shocking the ?learner?, that they must read a series of questions that the ?learner? must answer, if the question is wrong, the teacher must shock him and increase the voltage while sitting in a separated room. In reality the ?learner? is an actor, which will be unharmed. The real experiment is how long the teachers will continue as instructed to cause pain to the actor.
Testing obedience is a difficult task, and psychologists disagree on the ethical boundaries of testing the human psyche. Stanley Milgram and Diana Baumrind are two psychologists that disagree on the effectiveness of several obedience experiments conducted by Milgram. The experiments were conducted in 1963 to test the obedience of a variety on individuals from different social classes and genders. The subjects volunteered to enter a laboratory and assume the role of a teacher, where they read word pairs to a learner and test his knowledge by shocking the learner when he answers incorrectly (Milgram 78). An experimenter provokes the teacher to administer shocks of increasing voltage to the learner, causing more than half of the subjects to deliver
Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority-sometimes referred to as the "shock" studies-are the most influential and controversial in modern social psychology. They have affected fields as varied as law, business, medicine and the military. Plays, films and songs have been based on the experiments, and well known authors such as Doris Lessing and Arthur Koestler have written about them at length. Within academic social psychology, it would be difficult to overestimate their impact. In social psychology textbooks, a significant study is usually described in just a couple of sentences, or at most a paragraph, but the obedience experiments nearly always receive pages of coverage.The obedience studies indelib...