Analysis Of The Contempt For The Milgram Experiment

1003 Words5 Pages
Contempt for the Milgram Experiment In 1963s, Stanley Milgram, a Yale professor, conducted an experiment that sparked intense controversy throughout the nation(Milgram 77). Milgram attempted to pinpoint evil in its rawest form: through ordinary people. This was achieved by placing an ordinary person, called the teacher, in a situation in which an instructor pressured the subject, called the teacher, to shock another person, called the learner(Milgram 78). Despite hearing the progressively agonizing screams of the learner, the teacher continued to comply with the directives given by the instructor, thereby selecting obedience over morality(Milgram 80). While this experiment was revered and praised by many scientists and psychologists,…show more content…
Baumrind speculated that Stanley Milgram provided no post-experiment psychological aid to those subjects who were emotionally traumatized by the effects of their own actions; in addition, there were serious clinical complications that ailed multiple subjects after the experiment, one of which included a minor heart attack(Baumrind 90-92). In essence, Baumrind believes that the same experiment should have been executed in a less threatening environment, lacking the emotionally damaging consequences resulting from the dire situation(Baumrind 92). Parker agrees that Milgram should have implemented cautionary measures to insure that the experiment was not emotionally taxing on its subject or biased and inaccurate(Parker 99). Parker believes Milgram should have placed a giant, red, and accessible button in the middle of the room for the subjects to push and automatically eject themselves from the situation, as a substitute to the vague door placed inside every test room(Parker 103). Parker supposes the addition of the red button most likely would have caused an increase in the amount of subjects that chose to remove themselves from the situation; as a result, less emotional damage would be inflicted upon the subject, and the overall result of the experiment may have changed(Parker 103). Additionally, Saul McLeod, the author of "The Milgram Experiment", agrees with Parker and Baumrind, believing the Milgram experiment to be extremely biased and unethical(McLeod). McLeod speculates Milgram 's use of deception and lack of emotional protection for the subjects was abominable. He also questioned the authenticity of the experiment after Milgram placed only men in the learner 's position(McLeod). Because of this seemingly biased choice, McLeod automatically deemed the entire experiment unviable(McLeod). Although many psychologists,

More about Analysis Of The Contempt For The Milgram Experiment

Open Document