Milgram And Diana Baumrind's Analysis

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

Joshua Barajas, an author for PBS, offers an experiment that can perhaps strengthen the stance that Baumrind supports. Barajas cites Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London; he conducted his own experiments on obedience to determine the parallels to the Holocaust (Barajas). His experiments included an element not found in Milgram’s tests – actual shocks (Barajas). Haggard found that increased coercion resulted in a greater number of shocks delivered. That is, when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their decisions than when they select for themselves (Barajas). In a second experiment, Haggard explored whether the loss of agency could also be seen in the brain activity of subjects, which reinforces Baumrind’s stance that further research is required to connect the experiments to the Holocaust. Similar to Milgram’s experiments, subjects had to decide whether to shock a person with or without coercion, but now they heard an audible tone while making the choice. This sound elicited a brain response that could be measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) cap and proved dampened brain activity in response to coercion (Barajas). Haggard’s team also used

Charles J. Helm of Western Illinois University, an expert in Foundations of Political Theory and Human Rights, states that the experimenter is seen or perceived by the subject as ‘in charge’ and maintains authority without the threat of force (Helm). Helm agrees with Baumrind when he states that viewing authority as the person perceived to be in a position of social control in a situation, though attractive for operational purposes in a laboratory study, is too simple and too skewed to be adequate for understanding authority in its diverse social forms (Helm). The better part of politeness, demanded that the subjects support the experimenter and disregard the cries of the learner (Helm). The relationship between the subjects and the experimenter appeared to deal less with orders obeyed but rather of subjects unwilling to be seen as arrogant and rude (Helm). The focus on authority as a kind of control, particularly the type with which Milgram is concerned, leads him to misconstrue authority by misinterpreting its character when it is present. The authority figure, the experimenter, is dressed to evoke a sense of authority. He wears a grey smock and appears stern throughout, demonstrating a quiet confidence (Helm). In reality, the experimenter is a high school biology teacher, appropriately attired in a laboratory coat, speaking in a