Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist in 1963, conducted an experiment about human obedience that was deemed as one of the most controversial social psychology experiments ever (Blass). The original intent of the experiment was to determine if the Germans during WWII were simply obeying to authority when carrying out the Holocaust. The test subject, or teacher, would administer electric shocks to the learner, a paid actor, when he incorrectly answered the word pairings. The shocks started at 15v and went up by 15v increments up to 450v for every wrong answer. The teacher thought the learner was receiving electric shocks when in reality the learner was not receiving any shocks. An instructor, the authoritative figure, was sitting behind the teacher instructing the teacher to continue even when the learner cried out in pain. Sixty-five percent of the time, the teacher continued until he administered the highest shock at 450v (Cherry). This experiment proves that when under the right circumstances society will obey authority. Ian Parker, a writer for the New Yorker, and Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California Berkeley, responded to Mr. Milgram’s experiments with direct responses of their own. These articles represent how the scientific community reviews and scrutinizes each other’s work to authenticate the experiments results. Baumrind focuses on the moral and ethical dilemma while on the contrary Parker focuses more on the application of the actual experiment. Diana Baumrind thinks of Milgram’s experiment more of a ‘game’ then an actual scientific experiment (Baumrind 225). She claims that Milgram left no ‘out’ for the subject (226). Baumrind also thinks that Milgram did not care enough about the well-bein... ... middle of paper ... ...lgram should have offered physiatrist or therapy to the patients after participating in the experiment. Parker devises one simple statement for the problem, “ Works Cited Baumrind, Diana. “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience.” Writing & Reading for ACP Composition. Eds. Thomas E. Leahey and Christine R. Farris. New York: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2009. 230-240. Print. Blass, Thomas. "The Man Who Shocked The World." Psychology Today: Health, Help, Happiness. Sussex Publishers, LLC, 1 Mar. 2001. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. Cherry, Kendra. "The Milgram Obedience Experiment." Psychology for Students, Educators & Enthusiasts. New York Times. Web. 3 Sept. 2008. 11 Oct. 2011 Parker, Ian. “Obedience.” Writing & Reading for ACP Composition. Eds. Thomas E. Leahey and Christine R. Farris. New York: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2009. 224-229. Print.
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure. The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
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.
Baumrind, Diana. “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”. Writing & Reading for ACP Composition. Ed. Thomas E. Leahey and Christine R. Farris. New York: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2009. 224-229. Print.
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.
Stanley Milgram selected 40 college participants aged 20-50 to take part in the experiment at Yale University. Milgram says, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measureable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim” (632). Although the 40 men or women thought that they were in a drawing to see who would be the “teacher” and the “learner,” the drawing was fixed. The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually being shocked, the teachers believed t...
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
He enlisted forty participants and told them that they would be taking part in a study on the effects of punishment on learning. When they showed up to the testing site, they met with an experimenter and a confederate, Mr. Wallace, who they were led to believe was another participant in the study, just like them. As part of the experiment, it was determined that the participants would act as the “teacher” and Mr. Wallace would take on the role of the “learner”. The procedure the participants had to follow was straightforward; they were to read Mr. Wallace a list of paired words, and then through a series of multiple choice questions, test his memory. If he answered the question correctly, the participants moved on; however, if he got it incorrect, they were to administer him a shock, by pressing the indicated switches on the shock generator, with the shocks increasing by fifteen volts with each incorrect answer. As the shocks increase, Mr. Wallace begins to exhibit more and more signs of distress, asking for the study to end, and even making complaints of a heart condition. Despite his hesitance, the participants continued with the experiment because of the urging of the experimenter; if the participant remarked that they wanted to stop or check on the learner, the experimenter urged them by remarking “it is absolutely essential that you continue” or “you have no other choice; you must go on” (Kassin,
The Milgram experiment of the 1960s was designed to ascertain why so many Germans decided to support the Nazi cause. It sought to determine if people would be willing to contradict their conscience if they were commanded to do so by someone in authority. This was done with a psychologist commanding a teacher to administer an electric shock to a student each time a question was answered incorrectly. The results of the Milgram experiment help to explain why so many men in Nazi Germany were recruited to support the Nazi cause and serve as a warning against the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the United States government.
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.
“Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience.” Writing and Reading for ACP Composition, compiled by Christine R. Farris and Deanna M. Jessup, Pearson, 2013, pp. 89-95. Originally published in American Psychological Association.
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.
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...
He believes the scientific advancements from Milgram’s experiment outweigh the temporary emotional harm to the volunteers of Milgram’s experiment. Also Herrnstein points out that Milgram’s experiment was created to show how easily humans are deceived and manipulated even when they do not realize the pain they are causing. We live in a society and culture where disobedience is more popular than obedience; however, he believed the experiment was very important and more experiments should be done like it, to gain more useful information. The experiment simply would not have been successful if they subjects knew what was actually going to happen, Herrnstein claims. He believes the subject had to be manipulated for the experiment to be successful. “A small temporary loss of a few peoples privacy seems a bearable price for a large reduction in
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).... ...
The Web. The Web. 6 Jan. 2014. Smith, Chris.