Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Behavioral Study Of Obedience Stanley Milgram
Stanley milgram discoveries for obedience
Conformity as a type of social influence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Behavioral Study Of Obedience Stanley Milgram
In 1963 Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most influent and famous social psychology studies that in subsequent decades would affect an enormous amount of political, sociological and philosophical studies. In this essay I will analyze the rationale of this study, his interpretation and how other authors confute and proposed alternative explanations. In 1945, few months after the end of World War II, Allies court started the first legal processes to the principal Nazi criminals in Nuremberg, but in later years, one of the most famous trial of the history took place in Jerusalem, in 1962 : the Eichmann Process.
Adolf Eichmann was the Nazi officer most directly responsible for the logistics and planning of Hitler’s “Final Solution” , coordinating the exile of Jews before out of Austria, then their transfer to concentration camp. Hannah Arendt followed the process as correspondent for The New Yorker and then published her report and impressions in the book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. Arendt was immediately struck by the Eichmann’s way of communicating : he spoke with an structured and full of clichés speech, taken from a bureaucratic lexicon, describing himself as a common citizen, dutiful, faithful and obedient to law and to his superior’s orders. ...
... middle of paper ...
...oximity of the victim : when the learner could not be seen or heard all of the participants arrived at the end of the experiment , while when the teacher had to lower the victim's hand on the electrode to administrate the shock, obedience reached 30%. In the end even the process of social influence plays a key-role : the presence of two dissident participants reduced conformance, on the other hand when they obedient, total obedience raised to 92.5 %.
Milgram replicated the experimental paradigm in individuals of different age, sex, social and economic conditions and from different countries : the degree of obedience ranged from more than 90% between Spain and the Netherlands, more than 80% of Italians, Germans and Austrians, demonstrating a high level of external validity.
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.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
The Holocaust was one of the greatest tragedies the world has ever known. There were many key people who participated in this outrageous genocide however some get more attention then others. Adolf Eichmann is a classic example. Eichmann was a self-proclaimed “Jewish Specialist” and head of the Gestapo Department. Eichmann was responsible for keeping every train rolling right into the stations of the concentration and death camps during the holocaust. Now we will take a look into Eichmann’s childhood, life experiences, and his later actions to see what shaped into a man of hatred towards the Jewish race.
Murders inflicted upon the Jewish population during the Holocaust are often considered the largest mass murders of innocent people, that some have yet to accept as true. The mentality of the Jewish prisoners as well as the officers during the early 1940’s transformed from an ordinary way of thinking to an abnormal twisted headache. In the books Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi and Ordinary men by Christopher R. Browning we will examine the alterations that the Jewish prisoners as well as the police officers behaviors and qualities changed.
Every participant went through three hundred volts before they stopped and refused to go any further (McLeod, 2007). This study demonstrates that obedience is a part of who we are. Milgram concludes that there are two states of behavior. The first is autonomous behavior where the individual takes responsibility and the other is agentic state responsibility is on the person giving the orders (McLeod, 2007). People who are ordinary are capable of harming other individuals if a person of authority tells them to. For a person to be obedient they must believe the person giving the orders is qualified and will take responsibility. A person is less likely to harm another person if the authoritative person is not going to take responsibility. This was proven in Milgram’s study because when he told individuals they had to take responsibility they did not want to continue. The Milgram study has influenced other psychologist to explore what makes a person follow orders (Cherry, 2012). The other experiments that Milgram conducted showed that rebellious people are not as obedient. There were different environments demonstrated among the different studies that Milgram used and even though the environment changed the situation stayed the
Eichmann was a simple man that thought of himself as always being the law-abiding citizen. Eichmann stated in court that he had always tried to abide by Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (Arendt,135). Arendt argues that Eichmann had essentially taken the wrong lesson from Kant. Kant’s moral philosophy is so closely bound up with man’s faculty of judgment, which rules out blind obedience. Knowing this, we learn that Eichmann could not have just been going along with the Nazis without knowing anything that was going on or the consequences. Eichmann had not recognized the ‘golden rule’ and principle of reciprocity implicit in the categorical imperative, but had only understood the concept of one man's actions coinciding with general law. Eichmann attempted to follow the spirit of the laws he carried out, as if the legislator himself would approve. In Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative, the legislator is the moral self and all men are legislators. In other words, we are all taking on the roll of the leader. In Eichmann's formulation, the legislator was Hitler. Eichmann claimed this changed when he was charged with carrying out the Final Solution, at which point Arendt claims "he had ceased to live according to Kantian principles, that he had known it, and that he had consoled himself with the thoughts that he no longer 'was master of ...
Why so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram made an experiment to find the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded that people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to cooperate with the authority, even when acting against their own better judgment and desires. Milgram’s experiment illustrates that people's reluctance to confront those who abuse power. The point of the experiment was to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim, at what point will the subject refuse to obey the experimenter. One main question of the experiment was that how far the participant will comply with the experimenter’s instructions before refusing to carry out the actions required of him?
Humans are constantly pressured to be obedient and abide by rules and orders. Time outs are enforced for children when they act against their parents. Schools have strict guidelines for behavior. When a student acts out, administrators impose immediate consequences. Individuals are conditioned to follow orders through the punishments for poor behavior. Stanley Milgram conducted as social experiment aimed at determining the extent of human obedience to authority figures without being forced to comply. The responsibility of the consequences was transferred to the authority figures. Many subjects delivered shocks with the intensity to kill. They obeyed orders despite their morals. Consequently, in A Few Good Men, Lance Corporal Harold
To this day it remains incomprehensible to justify a sensible account for the uprising of the Nazi Movement. It goes without saying that the unexpectedness of a mass genocide carried out for that long must have advanced through brilliant tactics implemented by a strategic leader, with a promising policy. Adolf Hitler, a soldier in the First World War himself represents the intolerant dictator of the Nazi movement, and gains his triumph by arousing Germany from its devastated state following the negative ramifications of the war. Germany, “foolishly gambled away” by communists and Jews according to Hitler in his chronicle Mein Kampf, praises the Nazi Party due to its pact to provide order, racial purity, education, economic stability, and further benefits for the state (Hitler, 2.6). Albert Speer, who worked closely under Hitler reveals in his memoir Inside the Third Reich that the Führer “was tempestuously hailed by his numerous followers,” highlighting the appreciation from the German population in response to his project of rejuvenating their state (Speer, 15). The effectiveness of Hitler’s propaganda clearly served its purpose in distracting the public from suspecting the genuine intentions behind his plan, supported by Albert Camus’ insight in The Plague that the “townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words, they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences”(Camus, 37). In this sense “humanists” represent those who perceive all people with virtue and pureness, but the anti-humanist expression in the metaphor shows the blind-sidedness of such German citizens in identifying cruel things in the world, or Hitler. When the corruption within Nazism does receive notice, Hitler at that point given h...
Ordinary men have the capacity to commit extraordinary crimes and on April 11, 1961, Adolf Eichmann, an ordinary looking man, faced trial for the murder of five million Jews. Adolf Eichmann served in the Nazi party as their expert on Jewish matters. During the Nuremberg trials that took place years before Eichmann’s trial, many witnesses testified to the control Eichmann had over the implementation of the final solution. SS Captain Wisliceny worked under Eichmann in Hungary in 1944 and he proclaimed that Eichmann said, “he would jump into his grave laughing, because of the feeling that he had five million people on his conscience, gave him extraordinary satisfaction’” (48). Also, Eichmann worked with the members of Jewish councils, and they claimed in earlier trials that he had a direct hand in the “Jewish Question” (49).
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
The thoughtlessness in which Eichmann embodied in the courtroom, along with the normalcy he possesses, aids in the development of the enigmatic structure of the trial. Arendt's battle to find middle-ground between the idea of Eichmann as a common man attempting to fulfill objectives and his connection to the Nazi regime is what defies original theories on evil. The guilt Eichmann carries is clearly much larger than the man himself, especially one so simplistic and thoughtless. Therefore, the evil presented in Eichma...
Milgram, Stanley. Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind. From American Psychologist. Vol. 19, pp.848-852, 1964.
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of abnormal and social Psychology. 67 (4), p371-8.