More handpicked essays just for you.
Describe and evaluate research into obedience
Milgram experiment
Behavioural study of obedience short summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram a renowned social psychologist, published his study in obedience to authority which, although important in terms of understanding human behaviour, raised many ethical issues. This study was replicated in 2006 by Mel Slater et al. but as a consequence of the ethical outrage surrounding Milgram’s obedience study, it was not possible to completely replicate it. Through examination of the similarities and differences of both studies, this paper will demonstrate that the Slater et al. study was, in fact, an excellent replication of Milgram’s and has paved the way to more research on obedience previously unavailable to psychologists due to strict ethical constraints. (Banyard, 2012)
The key differences between the studies
…show more content…
Since Slater et al. were replicating Milgram’s study of obedience, their setup was also identical. The advantage of this was that the were no variances slipping into the experiment thus ensuring that the findings were solid and pure of contamination due to minor changes; The results were genuine findings into human behaviour.
There are both differences and similarities in the findings of both studies. A key difference was that Milgram discovered that people could be persuaded to physically hurt another person when instructed to do so by an authority figure. In contrast, Slater et al. observed that when people are exposed to a virtual world and avatar, they elicit the same behaviours as though it was a real world. Despite these differences, these findings mean that further research can be conducted into obedience, as the virtual world removes the ethical constraints which had previously prevented
…show more content…
The main similarity is in the strength of the studies. Milgram’s study, for instance, has been lauded as being an exemplary example of how an experiment should be conducted, as it was so highly planned and tightly controlled that every volunteer was exposed to an identical experience. By the same token, by utilising an avatar in the place of a human, Slater et al. were able to completely replicate the obedience study, establishing that virtual reality could prompt emotional responses for the avatar from the volunteers which mirrored those for humans. As a consequence of this, further experiments into obedience and other previously unethical studies can now be undertaken; using Milgram’s methodology but substituting an avatar for a human, thus complying with today’s more stringent ethical
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.
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.
He believes the scientific advancements from Milgram’s experiment outweigh the temporary emotional harm to the volunteers of Milgram’s experiment. Also Herrnstein points out that Milgram’s experiment was created to show how easily humans are deceived and manipulated even when they do not realize the pain they are causing. We live in a society and culture where disobedience is more popular than obedience; however, he believed the experiment was very important and more experiments should be done like it, to gain more useful information. The experiment simply would not have been successful if they subjects knew what was actually going to happen, Herrnstein claims. He believes the subject had to be manipulated for the experiment to be successful. “A small temporary loss of a few peoples privacy seems a bearable price for a large reduction in
As depicted in A Few Good Men, authors Fromm, Dalrymple, and Szegedy-Maszak provide evidence as to why blind obedience influences individuals’ motives, such as fear and trust, to examine how unjust authority pollutes a person’s ability to
This conclusion was disproved from Milgram’s experiment. The majority of the subjects obeyed the experimenter to the end. There were several reactions to the experiment. Some people showed signs of tension or stress, others laughed, and some showed no signs of discomfort throughout the experiment. Subjects often felt satisfaction by obeying the experimenter.
More specifically, the movie A Few Good Men depicts the results of blindly obeying orders. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, also explores obedience to authority in his essay “ The Perils of Obedience”. On the other hand, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, focused on disobedience to authority in his essay “ Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Milgram wrote about how people were shockingly obedient to authority when they thought they were harming someone else while Fromm dissected both: why people are so prone to obey and how disobedience from authoritative figures can bring beneficial changes for society. Obeying commands, even when they go against our morals, is human nature; Disobeying commands, however, is challenging to do no matter what the situation is.
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?
Comparative Analysis Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine). While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from escape and under control.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram of Yale University created one of the most well- known and famous studies on obedience. Milgram conducted this study in order to figure out if there were similarities involving obedience in the systematic killing of Jews from 1933 to 1945. The question Milgram was trying to answer was whether the Nazi's excuse for the murders of millions was a valid excuse and if the mass killings were because of orders the Nazi’s obeyed. According to Milgram, “obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose”. Essentially obedience means compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority. Obedience in society is both a good and bad thing in terms of it being an act of kindness or in terms of it being destruction. Milgram then creates a procedure consisting of a subject shocking a victim. This electric shock is caused by a generator used with 30 marked voltage levels that all range from 15 to 450 volts. In other words, these shocks vary from “Slight shock to Danger: Severe Shock”. The subject administers these shocks to the victim and if at a certain point in the experiment the subject refuses to go on with the experiment resulting in the act of "disobedience". Continuing the experiment is considered “obedience”. The subjects of his experiment were 40 males from New Haven and the surrounding areas. Participants all were from ages 20 to 50. Subjects responded from a newspaper advertisement and mail solicitations and believed that they were participating in a study of memory and learning at Yale. The men of this study all had a wide variety of jobs and all ranged in education levels. The men were paid $4.50 to participate in the study and no matter the ...
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of abnormal and social Psychology. 67 (4), p371-8.