Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of obedience to authority
Milgram's experiment review
Stanley milgram experiment purpose
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of obedience to authority
There are many different experiments that have been carried out to test different psychological aspects of the human brain. One of the experiments I find most entertaining is the Milgram experiment. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram's electric-shock studies showed that people will obey the most dangerous of orders. Stanley Milgram was a psychologist at Yale. He conducted an experiment where he focused on the relationship between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram was interested in researching how certain people would respond to figures of authority when they were given instructions to do something that they did not feel comfortable doing, such as electrocuting someone for answering a question wrong. Participants for the study were found through a newspaper advertisement to take part in an experiment on learning and teaching methods. This is how the experiment went. One person was paired with another person. One was assigned a job as the learner and the other was assigned the job as the teacher. The experiment was rigged so that the learner was one of Milgram's people. Milgram's people were pretending to be real participants. The rigged learner was taken in a room where a device that could electrocute him was placed on his arms. The teacher went into another room that had the controls to the device. There were many different switches each marked with a higher voltage than the last. The learner then tried to learn word pairs read to him. The teacher asked the learner to recall the words. The teacher was told to shock the learner every time he …show more content…
got a question wrong. The learner mainly gave wrong answers so he would be shocked. The catch is, the learner was acting to get shocked to see how far the teacher would go. The learner was clearly in pain but two-thirds of the people continued upping the voltage. In the end, 66% percent of the participants continued shocking the learner. They did this up until they got to the highest voltage available. The rest of the people shocked the others with 300 volts. After the experiment was over the teachers were informed that the shock was not real and that the reactions of the learners were scripted. Lots of the teachers were upset as they thought that they were electrocuting and hurting another person. They were even more upset when they found out that the high voltage shocks had the ability to kill somebody. Researchers have questioned his conclusions. Some say that the experiment is just down right wrong and some go as far to say that his whole experiment was not carried out correctly. In conclusion, Milgram concluded that regular people are likely to follow orders when they are given by an authority figure.
These orders could be as harsh as shocking someone with 450 volts of electricity for not answering a question correctly. Stanley Milgram’s obedience study has been extremely influential in psychology. This experiment is just another experiment to show how amazing the human brain actually
is.
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
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.
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.
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
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
Stanley Milgram, author of "The Perils of Obedience," conducted an experiment at Yale University to see if average citizens would partake in a study revolving around obedience to authority (Milgram 78). In said experiment, a professor from Yale would give an ordinary individual the authority to shock another person. If the ordinary individual asked to stop, the professor would coax them to continue and remind them they hold no responsibility (78). Not only did Milgram 's study revolve around obedience to authority, it also stressed the point of every person could be capable of torture and doing so without feeling responsible. In the article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," author Marianne Szegedy-Maszak states, anyone can
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.
If a person of authority ordered you to inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings, but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures.
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
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.
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a Yale University Psychologist conducted a variety of social psychology experiments on obedience to authority figures. His experiments involved three individuals, one of them was a volunteer who played the role of the teacher, one was an actor who played the role of the student, and one was the experimenter who played the role of the authority. The teacher was instructed by the authority to administrate shocks to the student (who claimed to have a heart condition) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The voltage of the shock would go up after every wrong answer. The experimenter would then instruct the teacher to administrate higher voltages even though pain was being imposed. The teacher would then have to make a choice between his morals and values or the choice of the authority figure. The point of the experiment was to try to comprehend just how far an individual would continue when being ordered by an individual in a trench coat to electrically shock another human being for getting questions incorrect. The experiment consisted of administrating pain to different people and proved that ordinary people will obey people with authority. Some of the various reasons are that the experimenter was wearing a trench coat, fear of the consequences for not cooperating, the experiments were conducted in Yale University a place of prestige, and the authority f...
Originally the theory was that many would stop the experiment being aware that the person that they were shocking is indeed being harmed, but that was proven wrong (Milgram 41). A different scientist who redid this experiment found that 85 percent of his subjects were obedient (Milgram 42). As a result it was evident that individuals will succumb to authoritative figures. Strudler and Warren explain that the subjects acted the way they did because of authority heuristics, which is the reliance on an authority figure (57). In Milgram’s experiment, the scientist was the authority figure in the experiment and the subject trusted his/her judgment because they believed that the scientist knows what he/she is doing. Even though the subject believed they have “free” will in their choices, the pressures of t...
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.
Therefore, it can cause people to disregard their personal conscience and abide by the rules. Research has demonstrated the power of authority and the alarming extent to which people comply even when it conflicts with their own values and morals. In Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience, the experimenter asked participants to administer an electric shock, which gradually increased in voltage every time the learner got an answer wrong. Participants were unaware that the learner was, in fact, a confederate. The results of the study are displayed in Table 2 below, showing that 65% of participants were willing to administer the highest shock