Milgram Experiments Summary

Kat Allen

Isbell

Composition I

25 November 2015

Obligation to Obey: Moral Values of the Milgram Experiments

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”

would have to give the correct corresponding word. For each incorrect answer, the “teacher” was to administer a shock, increasing the voltage with each incorrect answer. They were prompted that under no circumstance were they allowed to quit the experiment, and that it was “of utmost importance to continue the experiment” (Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiment).
Although the Milgram Experiment can be viewed as unethical today, one must avoid judging with a degree of anachronism, which, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: “a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present” ( Merriam-Webster.) In hindsight, Milgram's experiment definitely violates various ethical standards These ethical rules have been outlined and revised by the APA, however, in Stanley Milgram’s era, no such ethical rules existed in black and white; they were only suggested. By today’s standards, however, the experiment can be viewed as unethical in terms of deception, protection of participants, and affecting the participants’ right to withdrawal from the experiment.
One of the controversial ethical misconducts that Milgram performed was deceit.

He did not fully disclose the fact that the “learner” was not receiving any electric shocks, as well as the true purpose behind the experiment. To make the experiment more of a reality to the “teachers” he gave them a real electric shock on one of the lower voltages, to give them an idea of what pain the “learner” would be experiencing. Diana Baumrind in her article “Is Milgram’s Deception Research Ethically Acceptable?” she writes, “Lying to subjects when obtaining ‘informed’ consent violates the right of prospective subjects” (Baumrind, para.3). On the contrary, Saul McLeod, who has a “degree in psychology and have a masters degree in research,” (simplypsychology,org), writes in his article, The Milgram Experiment “[h]owever, Milgram argued that ‘illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths’. [(Milgram, para. 43-44)]” (McLeod, para. 1, Ethical Issues). In the 1960s there was no mandatory ethical rules of conduct, there was only suggestions that did not have to be taken. Taking this into account, I believe that the way that Milgram went about the proposition of the experiment was deceitful. Especially given the fact that Milgram shocked the “teacher,” and the “learner” was an actor that was never

shocked.
In addition to deceit, another action of ethical misconduct was the protection of the participants. Milgram “exposed [the participants] to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm” (McLeod, para. 4, Ethical Issues). For some of the participants, it was obvious to the experimenter that they were distressed.; for example, some participants trembled, sweated, cried, and “[t]hree participants had uncontrollable seizures” (McLeod, para. 5, Ethical Issues). Milgram had not anticipated these reactions, and yet he still continued with the experiments, and the experimenter continued to prompt the subject to go through with the experiment, which leads to the next key point in the argument. the participants’ rights to withdrawal.
One of the major conflicts associated with Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments is the way he approached the participants’ right to withdrawal.

Milgram argues that since the true nature of the study was about obedience, orders were necessary in order to be successful or to gather usable data. As stated previously, there were no mandatory laws in place as far as deception goes. However, in the 1960s there was a law in place, written by the British Psychological Society that stated that “states that researchers should make it plain to participants that they are free to withdraw at any time” (McLeod, para. 9, Ethical Issues). Still, Milgram disregarded this with his argument and used the following prompts to discourage the subjects from withdrawing from the

experiment:
“
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on. ”
(McLeod, para. 10, Ethical Issues).
“Milgram pointed out that although the right to withdraw was made partially difficult it was possible as 35% of participants had chosen to withdraw”(McLeod, para. 11, Ethical Issues). Diana Baumrind disagrees with his argument completely stating,
[“I was motivated not by Milgram’s “unanticipated” findings (which I did not find surprising), but, as I claimed, by the deceit and mistreatment of subjects by a fiduciary— a psychologist, who of all people should have anticipated, and not inflicted, emotional distress on subjects”] (Baumrind, para. 10).
Given the information above, I personally believe that Milgram’s obedience experiments were unethical by modern standards, but ethical by standards that were around during the 1960s. Although today Milgram’s experiments can be seen as unethical, I still believe they were justified. He had a decent question that he wanted answers to, but he ended up taking it too far through deceit, risking the health of innocent people, and violating participants’ right to withdrawal. Milgram shocked the world looking for answers with his experiments, and even though he eventually did find answers, he could have went about it in a different, safer manner. Therefore, I conclude that Milgram’s experiments were unethical, but justified.

.