Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of milgram experiment
Milgram experiment
The milgram experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary of milgram experiment
Milgram Experiment (Derren Brown) Scientist tell people they are doing a test on the effects of punishment on learning, but the real experiment is to see how much harm a person will give to another person just because some scientist tells them to. About half of the subjects went all the way to the end to where they were giving the lethal shock limit to the students. From this I have learned that most people put authority over their morality. Most people would rather do what they are told and be cruel to the student than put an end to the experiment because they think it is inhumane. The Bystander Effect A man sees someone steel from a woman but does not do anything because he noticed that everyone else around him saw it but did
nothing. Also they put actors on the street to act like they are in pain or passed out, the drunk got nobody to help him, man with suit got almost instantaneous help, the non-drunk took a lot longer to get help but once one person helped everyone did, another man dressed in casual clothes lays in pain and no one helps. What I get from this experiment is that a person will do whatever everyone else is doing no matter if they want to help or not. All it would take was one person to help to get more people to help. Also that they judge the person in need on whether or not they deserve it. 78 year old man hit by car and no one helps In the video it shows a man getting hit by a car and no one helps. The car that hit him drives off, no one chases it. The bystanders just look at him and nobody bothers to help him up or off the street. I don’t know what it was that mad everyone not help but if I had to guess it would be that because the car ran off it was like the bystander effect to where nobody helped because the people before didn’t. When you heard the sirens start that way people then started toward the man in the street and that was like how it takes one person to help and then everyone does.
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 teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
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
Respect for Subjects, as defined by the U.S government, is to “show respect to human subjects, researchers must continue to check the well-being of each subject as the study proceeds. Researchers should remove subjects from the study if it becomes too risky or harmful.” (Emanuel et al. p.7, ¶7-8). The means that the doctors must keep checking on the subjects and must be removed if it was dangerous. Charlie wasn’t removed from the experiment even though it becomes harmful to him. This is why the study violates the principle of Respect for Subjects, as it doesn’t benefit Charlie, making this experiment treacherous. “I have already begun to notice signs of emotional instability and forgetfulness, the first symptoms of the burnout.” (Keyes June 5, ¶8). Charlie is struggling and is getting worse by the day, and Dr. Strauss and Nemur are not taking any action into it. At the same time, these doctors are still keeping Charlie in the experiment even though he is at discomfort. Later on in the passage, Charlie is at distress. “Deterioration progressing. I have become absentminded.” (Keyes June 10, ¶1). Charlie symptoms are getting worse progressively just because he recieved the experiment. He is returning back to his original state. In the story, Fair Subject Selection was clearly not applied to the experiment as is didn’t follow the regulation. The main reason why this
The Asch and Milgram’s experiment were not unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the detail of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress Asch and Milgram’s were
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?
In 1963, Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment that was one of the most controversial of his time, and of ours. “The subjects—or ‘teachers’—were instructed to administer [electroshocks] to a human ‘learner,’ with the shocks becoming progressively more powerful and painful” (Collins, para. 1, Book Overview). The subjects watched as the “learner” was strapped into a chair. When the experimenter asked if either of the two had a question, the “learner” mentioned he had a heart problem. The “teacher” heard this, as well, and still continued to go through with the experiment. told that they were to read a series of paired words, and “learners”
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
This was called the Little Albert study. The experiment was designed to test the theory that an infant could be conditioned to fear an animal that is shown at the same time that a loud noise is being made. In the beginning of the experiment the rat was shown to Albert with no loud noise. Albert showed no signs of fear. But when there was a loud noise made when the rat was shown he started crying and having avoidance showing signs of fear. The loud noise was made with a hammer and a steel bar. Two months after pretesting Albert with the rat, Watson and Rosalie showed the rat, small animals, and object. Albert showed fear to them. Then they moved Albert to a different room for testing, he had a reaction to the rat, rabbit, and dog. While they tested him in this room they were still making noise while presenting the animal. For example when the dog was shown it would bark in the middle of the session, and when the rat was shown the loud band was still made. According to Ronna f. Dillon, “Albert was said to show fear when touching a mask, a sealskin coat, the rat, a dog, and a rabbit” (2). Watson proved that classical conditioning works on humans with the little Albert
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Ordinary people are willing to go against their own decision of right and wrong to fulfill the request of an authoritative figure, even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong. Using a variety of online resources including The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram this paper attempts to prove this claim.
Zajac, R. & Hayne H. (2003). I don’t think that’s what really happened: The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s repots. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 187-195.
At first approach, Milgram’s experiment process seemed leveled, until I realized that the voltage was increased as well as the affliction of pain. Now I say leveled because one would perceive the test to measure the participants’ memory and sensory skills. I.E. (I touched a hot stove and rapidly withdrew my hand, thus now I know to approach all stoves with caution for that reason.) Milgram’s experiment (My response was incorrect and I was shocked, thus next time I will think harder and answer strongly to avoid begin shocked again). The more I observed the experiment I realized the learner was not Milgram’s focus. At some points of the session, the learner would become unresponsive and the teacher was still instructed to apply the next voltage, this experiment was unethical long before this
...to find out something when they use children. The Tuskegee experiment exhibit how cruel researcher can also be, and how racial society was in 1932. The experiments show what can happen without regulations. There should be values and regulations to guide research in these experiments. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
...ir obnoxious teachers. This sort of thing is seen in many instances just not under the title of experiment.