Stanford and Milgram’s Experiment Essay There are multiple ethical guidelines in the study of research. in which in both of these videos we will be observing whether or not they were met. In addition, do you think that the guidelines were worth breaking for. Lastly, what was learned from both Milgram’s and Stanford’s experiment and why. Milgram’s experiment did not meet all the ethical guidelines despite no real physical harm to the participant nor the confederate, the experiment broke the code of conduct in regard to what constitutes an ethical study in a number of ways. The first issue was that Milgram used deception; he thought this to be necessary to help meet his aims in a valid way, and although some levels of deception are at times …show more content…
For example, informed consent as each participant must occur to be fully informed about what is expected of them during the study and what will happen. This information should be understood as well as just presented before voluntary consent is obtained. Issues can arise when deception is used. After completing a consent form they also had a preliminary interview where participants who had anxiety issues and similar were encouraged not to participate due to the effects of the study, therefore informed consent was obtained. Also, the right to withdraw in where participants should be aware that they can leave the study at any point with no penalty and request that their data is not used. in other words, participants were initially aware of their right to withdraw, even if they did forget this during the study. In addition to confidentiality was where participants’ data should be kept confidential and only accessible to investigators involved with the study. This all means that confidentiality was maintained. As a result, there was no deception used as participants were informed that their usual rights would be taken away and under what conditions they would be living in. Another ethnic guideline was debrief in where all participants were given a full debrief after the study and fully explained what was expected to be found and why the study was finished early. In the other hand, protection from harm is a …show more content…
One may ask, what is something we can take from this study? Well the first fact that I want to mention is that the study has been replicated. This study proves and shows to be unethical. One concept that Milgram had found when he interviewed the participants following the study was that many of the were ashamed of what they had done. As a result, acceptable things happen to great people, and awful things happen to awful people. We as humans need to remind ourselves to take full responsibility for our own actions and avoid blaming others. In the other hand, I learned that the Zimbardo Prison Experiment demonstrated, in a controlled and scientific manner, just how great an effect the environment has on our individual behavior, capable of trumping what we would otherwise consider our steadfast moral and behavioral guidelines. Individuality so easily melts away as the social environment begins to define the individual. It was trying to figure out how conformity and obedience can result in people behaving in ways that are counter to how they would act on their own. In addition, counter to how they think that they would act. Such as, before the answer is still complicated in behalf of it will be assumed that only
“Ethical Issues of the Milgram Experiment.” Associated Content. Yahoo, 8 November 2008. Web. 12 October 2011.
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
In “ Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments On Obedience” by Diana Baumrind, and in “Obedience” by Ian Parker, the writers claim that Milgram’s Obedience is ethically wrong and work of evil because of the potential harm that the subjects of the experiment had. While Baumrind’s article focused only on the Subjects of the experiment, Parker’s article talked about both immediate and long term response to experiment along with the reaction of both the general public and Milgram’s colleagues, he also talks about the effect of the experiment on Milgram himself. Both articles discuss has similar points, they also uses Milgram’s words against him and while Baumrind attacks Milgram, Parker shows the reader that experiment
The experiment was to see if people would follow the orders of an authority figure, even if the orders that were given proved to cause pain to the person taking the test. In the “Milgram Experiment” by Saul McLeod, he goes into detail about six variations that changed the percentage of obedience from the test subject, for example, one variable was that the experiment was moved to set of run down offices rather than at Yale University. Variables like these changed the results dramatically. In four of these variations, the obedience percentage was under 50 percent (588). This is great evidence that it is the situation that changes the actions of the individual, not he or she’s morals.
In this study Zimbardo chose 21 participants from a pool of 75, all male college students, screened prior for mental illness, and paid $15 per day. He then gave roles. One being a prisoner and the other being a prison guard, there were 3 guards per 8 hour shift, and 9 total prisoners. Shortly after the prisoners were arrested from their homes they were taken to the local police station, booked, processed, given proper prison attire and issued numbers for identification. Before the study, Zimbardo concocted a prison setting in the basement of a Stanford building. It was as authentic as possible to the barred doors and plain white walls. The guards were also given proper guard attire minus guns. Shortly after starting the experiment the guards and prisoners starting naturally assuming their roles, Zimbardo had intended on the experiment lasting a fortnight. Within 36 hours one prisoner had to be released due to erratic behavior. This may have stemmed from the sadistic nature the guards had adopted rather quickly, dehumanizing the prisoners through verbal, physical, and mental abuse. The prisoners also assumed their own roles rather efficiently as well. They started to rat on the other prisoners, told stories to each other about the guards, and placated the orders from the guards. After deindividuaiton occurred from the prisoners it was not long the experiment completely broke down ethically. Zimbardo, who watched through cameras in an observation type room (warden), had to put an end to the experiment long before then he intended
Stanley Milgram conducted the experiment to put participants into immoral situations to obey an authority figure of some measure, and he tested their performance and willingness, to participate in acts that strayed away from their belief of right and wrong. Zimbardo conducted an experiment in some ways similar. He conducted an experiment to see if people would assume the expected normal roles of what a prisoner is expected to do and what an authority figure like a prisoner guard is supposed to do. So both Zimbardo and Milgram at this point are trying to prove that authority and the social norm of how authorities should act generates psychological effects on their performance, as well as people who are expected to be below and obey an upper hand.
Firstly, the experiment took place at Yale University, which creates an atmosphere of credibility and importance. Those participating were also lead to believe that their contribution went to a worthy cause – to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes. They were also told that the victim (the learner), was taking part voluntarily meaning they had an obligation to fulfill even if it became unpleasant, (also applies to the teacher). Additionally, the volunteers were being paid which created a further sense of commitment to the investigation. Those who took part also had little knowledge about how psychological experiments ran, as Milgram’s study was most likely the first one they ever partook in. Therefore they had little knowledge about the rights and expectations of the situation, and felt more confined than if they had been through a similar experience prior. The participant was also under the impression that the roles of being the teacher or learner were assigned randomly, so there were no feelings of unfairness in the system. The partakers had also been assured that the shocks were “painful but not dangerous” and that the procedure was all part of a worthy long term cause (Holah). Lastly, the victim responded to all of the questions until the 300 Volt was reached, convincing the participant of their willingness and persistence to
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
The Milgram experiment of the 1960s was designed to ascertain why so many Germans decided to support the Nazi cause. It sought to determine if people would be willing to contradict their conscience if they were commanded to do so by someone in authority. This was done with a psychologist commanding a teacher to administer an electric shock to a student each time a question was answered incorrectly. The results of the Milgram experiment help to explain why so many men in Nazi Germany were recruited to support the Nazi cause and serve as a warning against the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the United States government.
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.
She reasons that, therefore, a laboratory is not an appropriate place to conduct an experiment of this theme. Though Baumrind’s assertion holds some truth, whether the subject obeyed or not was not the focus of Milgram’s experiment. He wanted to see to what extent the subjects obeyed. Just because the subjects were in a setting where obedience is appropriate does not mean the extent to which they were obedient is irrelevant to human nature. For example, if a teacher tells a student to harm a classmate, the level of obedience that student displays is still pertinent to society as a whole. Just because the student is in a setting where obedience is more appropriate does not mean that the degree to which that student is obedient is unimportant. In fact, it is completely relevant because Milgram’s experiment demonstrated that too much obedience can be detrimental for humans as a species. For example, despite murdering millions of people, Adolf Eichmann was mentally unscathed because, in his mind, he was just being obedient. This shows that humans as a species are more than capable of committing deplorable acts under the umbrella of obeying authority. Even though Milgram’s methods were immoral, society now realizes that too much obedience is not beneficial, but actually
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
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
After reading Stanley Milgram experiment I thought it was a little crazy. The experiment did really upset me. Some people are going to far they could really hurt somebody. Just because someone is telling them to do it. They could hurt or kill innocent people. It did shock me when a lot more people kept on going. They were afraid that something would happen to listener and they don't want responsibility. People are always told to listen to authority but you have to think about what's right and wrong they could tell you to do anything dangerous.
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale University wanted to study and observe how people would react to authority if asked to continue on a task even if it meant hurting another human being. The experiment first began at night in a small shadowy room. For the experiment, it required three people, there was first the volunteer which was a random person from the street who was considered the teacher in the experiment. Then their was the two actors who Milgram had payed them to be in the experiment, one of the two actors was the leaner who was strapped to the electric