Stanley Milgram's Experiments On Obedience

In her article, Diana Baumrind discusses the Milgram obedience experiment which she says produces “ethical decisions” and considers “not… suited to the objectives of the study” (Baumrind 90, 93). Her article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience,” especially focuses on Milgram’s “objective” stance to the mental health of his test subjects and his supposed failure to inform his subjects of what they were to undertake (Baumrind 94). Baumrind compares Milgram’s experiment to the death camp situation in Nazi Germany and his laboratory to that of Hitler’s Germany (Baumrind 93). Writer Ian Parker poses a different angle on the same experiment and psychologist in his article “Obedience.” Throughout his article, Parker provides information

Although his review includes statements on the controversy he faced, Parker refrains from clearly taking a side. He discusses in length the negative effects the experiment held for Milgram and goes so far as to suggest the experiment’s results led to Milgram’s early death (Parker 99). However, Parker seems to plead Milgram’s innocence by noting on the measures taken by Milgram to follow up on his subjects, such as the medical attention given to them and the questionnaires mailed out to provide information on the subject’s true thoughts (Parker 98). In a widely known book focusing on Milgram’s experiment, author Thomas Blass published a chart with statistics over participant’s final thoughts on the experiment. His numbers fully support Parker’s claim of morality by showing the amount of participants who regretted having been in the experiment. A slim 0.5% of the subjects defiantly claimed they were “sorry to have been in the experiment” (Blass 125). He also attempts to disprove the claim of long-term traumatic effects by showing only 10.2% of participants were extremely nervous throughout and 63% of the subjects claimed the experiment had not bothered them at all since the time of its occurrence (Blass 126-127). If harm or negative effects would have been widespread, the results of the questionnaires would not have showed such compliance. This would imply the experiment in itself was not harmful nor intended to