Stanley Milgram's 1963 Summary

An Analysis of the Design and Deployment of Milgram’s 1963 Obedience Study as it Relates to the National Association of Social Work Code of Ethics and the Author’s Personal Values

In reviewing Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience, published in 1963, I am dissecting the ethics behind his research through the lens of social work and its adherence to the National Association of Social Work (NASW) Code of Ethics. I will explore the paper through the ethics of “social workers’ primary responsibility…to promote the well-being of clients” (National Association of Social Workers, 2017), standard 1.01 Commitment to Client. Second, I will look at the duty to informed consent, standard 1.03. Third, I will explore the idea surrounding the importance

Milgram was most “interested in obedience and humans’ response to authority” (Ref B. p. 5). Through his research, Milgram wanted to find the link between authority and the horrid events that unfolded during the Nazi regime’s quest for domination. In addition to addressing obedience, Milgram’s research set off a firestorm of debate surrounding the ethics of research studies and their participants. It became one of “the most famous, or infamous, study[s] in the annals of scientific psychology” (Benjamin Jr. & Simpson, 2009, p. 12) both for the conclusions Milgram drew from his research but also for the ethics behind how Milgram designed the

Integrity drives my daily action. Integrity drives my personal and professional interactions and I intend integrity to also drive my professional career as a social worker. Integrity also influenced my feelings surrounding my conclusion that Milgram lacked integrity with regard to two points: obtaining participants and false advertising tactics utilized in the abstract to Milgram’s research paper. Milgram sought participants by placing an ad in a newspaper and by mailing flyers soliciting participants (Milgram, 1963). Commitment, in my mind, is rooted in integrity. It means that to “promote the well-being of clients” (National Association of Social Workers, 2017) we must be honest with them. The entire foundation of obtaining participants for this study rests on the notion that to do so, dishonest techniques had to be used. Milgram (1963) states, “those who responded to the appeal believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University” (p. 372). The study did not have to do with memory or learning. Milgram utilized this deception as a tactic for obtaining participants so as not to conflict any obedience findings. Additionally, he openly boasted about it this tactic in his research paper, further making me question his