Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Stanley milgram's obedience experiment consequences
Stanley milgram's obedience experiment consequences
Obedience and the milgram experiments essay review
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Stanley milgram's obedience experiment consequences
Stanley Milgram was a social psychologist best known for an experiment he did regarding destructive obedience (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2011). According to McLeod, Milgram had originally set out to prove that Germans were somehow more obedient than Americans. This was a short while after WWII had finished and the horrors committed by the Nazis under Hitler’s authority had been learned. His experimental results were contradictory to the results predicted by fellow psychiatrists, college students and some adults of various occupations. They had predicted that very few people would obey an order that would harm another person; however, the actual results proved quite the opposite. Instead of proving that German’s were more obedient, Milgram opened the door to the possibility that anyone is capable of carrying out orders that would harm another person (2007). Douglas Navarick expanded on the experiment’s results and derived a three-stage model for defiance and withdrawal (2012). After comparing the three sources on the previously mentioned topic, it is my belief that the peer reviewed journal (Navarick, 2012) is the most credible. Its credibility is largely accredited to the established requirements of publication in the journal it is found in.
Hockenbury and Hockenbury summarized Milgram’s experiments as simply as they could. The test subject was led to believe that the second participant was as uniformed as they were and that their roles in the experiment were chosen at random. They were told that the experiment was about learning and memory and the effect punishment has on them. The test subject was given the role of “teacher” and the other participant given the role of “learner” seemingly at random. The second partici...
... middle of paper ...
... it means avoiding personal discomfort. A source is considered credible if it is accepted by general consensus of the experts of the field it concerns. It should also show the scientific facts that support it. A standalone source that does not show any form of reference to other psychologists that agree with or support his/her theory would not be considered as credible.
Works Cited
Hockenbury, D., & Hockenbury, S. (2011). Discovering Psychology (5th ed.). New
York: Worth.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Simply Psychology; Obedience in Psychology. Retrieved 25
March 2012, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/obedience.html
Navarick, D. J. (2012). Historical Psychology and the Milgram Paradigm: Tests of an Experimentally Derived Model of Defiance Using Accounts of Massacres by Nazi Reserve Police Battalion 101. Psychological Record, 62(1), 133-154.
The experiment began with Milgram placing an advertisement in the local newspaper to recruit volunteers for his experiment. The experiment began with the introduction of the other participant, the other participant being an ally of Milgram’s. Afterwards, each participant would draw straws to decide which role they would take up, the “teacher” or the “learner.” However, the decision was always fixed so that the participant would always end up being the teacher. The learner would then be strapped to an electric chair by the teacher and would have a list of words read to him to be
Dalrymple states that he obeyed his superior because she was more knowledgeable over her job (256). The Milgram experiment demonstrates how ordinary people act towards authority in certain situations. Dalrymple accurately utilizes that point by describing when a boy is turned in for trying to steal a car and then the parents proceed to yell at the guards. The guards began to stop reporting kids because they wanted to avoid the conflict all together (257). Parker agrees with Dalrymple by explicating that the experimenter alludes to conflict when the teacher wants to discontinue the experiment, but stumbles to rebel when dictated to continue (238). Parker’s solution is to offer a button for the teachers to press when they are no longer able to continue the experiment (238).
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.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
In his article, he provides excerpts from his experiment to solidify his concepts. For example, Gretchen Brandt continuously askes if the "Student" is ok; however, when the "Experimenter" says to continue, she does so but not without saying she "...doesn 't want to be responsible for anything happening to him" (80). Another example Milgram provides is of a man by the name Fred Prozi. Prozi proceeds through the entire experiment. That is, until he runs out of word pairs. At this point the "Experimenter" urges him to continue. Prozi refuses; yet, when the experimenter claims the responsibility is his and his alone, Prozi continues still full of concern (83). Szegedy-Maszak calls this "routinization", one person having responsibility for one job (76). In Milgram 's case the job was having the responsibility for all outcomes, and urging the "Student" to continue. In response to Milgram 's experiment and others, Saul McLeod, psychology tutor at University of Manchester, writes that the person being ordered around believes the authority will accept the responsibility of the end results. He calls this the "agentic state", when people allow others to push them around and direct all responsibility on to them; therefore, acting as agents for the other person (The Milgram Experiment).
Obedience may be a simple word, yet it has a powerful impact on the daily lives of millions. Obedience is simply when one follows the orders or directions of another figure, presumably in an authoritative position. This is something nearly everyone bows to everyday without even realizing it - and it can drastically change our lives as we know it. Obedience is, for example, how the holocaust happened. The Germans were ordinary people turned into murderers because they followed the orders of one man - their dictator, Adolf Hitler. Of course, obedience does not always result in horrid results such as the holocaust or result in such a large catastrophe. Obedience can have drastic effects on the lives of only a few men as well; this is showcased in the movie A Few Good Men.
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.
The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and were taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually shocked, the teachers believed they were inflicting real harm on these innocent people.... ... middle of paper ...
Obedience is a widely debated topic today with many different standpoints from various brilliant psychologists. Studying obedience is still important today to attempt to understand why atrocities like the Holocaust or the My Lai Massacre happened so society can learn from them and not repeat history. There are many factors that contribute to obedience including situation and authority. The film A Few Good Men, through a military court case, shows how anyone can fall under the influence of authority and become completely obedient to conform to the roles that they have been assigned. A Few Good Men demonstrates how authority figures can control others and influence them into persuading them to perform a task considered immoral or unethical.
This experiment is a test to see if people are naturally aggressive. Milgram does not believe that people are naturally aggressive. Although some people think people are naturally aggressive. Ordinary people can be part of a bad course of actions without having any anger toward then victim.
Milgram’s studies on obedience to authority as well as obedience under extreme stress, paved a way to understanding the human psyche and how we handle choices we do not understand. As human beings we are given from a very young age a set of morals and standards we choose to live by. We see our parent’s successes and failures and we base the choices we make on what made them happy, and what will in the long run, bring us the same joy. From the beginning of the experiment you can see the pressure he starts everyone under. Where he chooses to begin his testing tells you a lot about what he was wanting them all to feel. A very rundown, dark, empty building with prison cell like rooms with sparse walls. Pipes showing and most likely a musty smell
Vol. 64 (1), pp. 12-18, 2009. Milgram, Stanley. A. Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind.
In Milgram’s article, he discusses the basic principle of obedience and the necessity of such behavior in the structure of society and all social life. For many people, obedience is a deeply engraved behavior pattern, and very well a strong impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct (Milgram 579). Milgram set up an experiment at Yale University to see how much pain one would inflict on another simply because of being commanded to do so. Authority won more than not.
...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.