Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Milgram Experiment
Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments in the field of social psychology that tested how far random individuals were willing to be "obedient" if given orders by a person in "authority." The test was inspired by the stories of otherwise ordinary citizens on Nazi-Germany taking part in the war crimes that, in normal circumstances, one would typically shun. Milgram was testing the hypothesis that man will do something even if it goes against conscience if only he can justify it to himself by saying that he was "following orders."
The experiment was conducted in the following manner: two persons were involved in conducting the experiment -- but one of them was pretending to be a random volunteer, while the other was dressed as a scientist and was "in charge" of the experiment. The third person involved was the actual subject of the experiment. This was a random individual who really did volunteer to be part of the exercise -- not knowing that he was actually the one being tested in Milgram's "Behavior Study of Obedience." The Experimenter would be the scientist (the authority), the Teacher would be the subject (the volunteer taking orders from the Experimenter), and the Learner would be the other person pretending to be a random subject but actually being "in on" the test. The Learner and the Teacher drew "slips" of paper to see who got which role, but the slips always both said "Teacher" and the actor would pretend his said "Learner" to guarantee that the subject would always be put in the role of the one taking orders.
In one particular experiment during this series, Milgram had his actor tell the "Teacher" that he had a heart condition, which would later make the Teacher even more nervous about taking part in the experiment (Milgram, 1963, p. 371).
The experiment,...
The Teacher would ask the Learner a series of questions. If the Learner answered incorrectly he was given an electric shock. With each wrong answer the shocks increased in voltage -- or so the Teacher was told. In actuality, the actor was only pretending to be shocked. Once voltage increased, the Learner would hit the wall repeatedly, demand to be let out, and cry in pain. If the Teacher expressed a desire to quit the experiment, the Experimenter would say insist that the Teacher "continue," saying that he had no choice but to "go on" (Milgram, 1963, p. 372).
The results showed that of the 40 persons tested, 65% of them gave the Learner the 450-volt shock (the highest) in spite of protests from the Learner. This finding was surprising, considering that when Milgram polled teachers and students at Yale University, all of them indicated that only a small percentage would give the maximum voltage shock. Milgram (1974) stated later when he revisited the topic that "ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process." Thus, Milgram showed that while obedience could be a virtue, it could also "turn to vice, being misapplied" as the famous playwright noted (Shakespeare, 1974, p. 331). That is, obeying one who gave an unjust command would not be virtuous but rather vicious. Obedience is only a virtue when the command is not immoral. More than half of the participants of the study failed to make this distinction in the experiment -- a fact that indicates there is something fundamentally unhealthy in 20th century society. The question that remains is: why did so few people fail to stand up to the Experimenter and demand the…
References
Blass, T. (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World. NY: Basic Books.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67(4): 371-8.
Milgram, S. (1974). The Perils of Obedience. Harper's Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_perils_authority_1974.html
horrors of war have been discussed by researchers and historians for decades. Ever since the first and second world wars, people have wondered how others could commit the acts they did for as long as they did. The Nazis for example, did atrocious things to the Jewish people and continued to do so until the end of World War II. The selected study, the Milgram Experiment or the Milgram
Stanley Milgram’s groundbreaking psychological experiments on obedience remain famous not just because of what they revealed about human behavior, but also because of how they drew attention to the need for more robust ethical codes in psychological research. Burger (2009) replicates Milgram’s most famous obedience studies in “Replicating Milgram,” tweaking the methodology to ensure ethical treatment of research participants. Therefore, the Burger (2009) experiment uses slightly different experimental approaches. Experimental
Milgram's Seminar Research After the Nazi atrocities, during the Second World War, towards the Jews, many people wondered how people could have been so sadist and committed such behaviors. The Nazi's death camps were where Jews were tortured and killed by skilled administrative personnel, and these administrators were decent German citizens. Many people still wonder the reasons that could have motivated them to participate in such obnoxious behaviors. Milgram (1974) carried
Milgram Obedience, Morality and the Scientific Process in Milgram During the period between 1963 and 1974, social psychologist, professor and theorist Stanley Milgram published a landmark series of findings regarding the nature of morality, authority and obedience. Compelled by the recently revealed atrocities of the Holocaust, Milgram was driven to better understand the kinds of institutional forces that could make ostensibly ordinary men and women commit acts of such heinous proportions as
He also notes that the distress as well as the level of compliance was unexpected, and some unpredictability of any experiment must be expected by both researchers and volunteers (Milgram 1964). This type of 'follow up,' while perhaps acceptable in the 1960s would likely be seen as inadequate by modern researchers. But recently, in an essay in Granta Magazine, Ian Parker has reevaluated the obedience experiments, noting that they cast
Animal Research Milgram and the Ethics of Psychological Experimentation Milgram's experiment, while it may be viewed as controversial in a modern context, was ultimately ethical. This is because the American Psychological Association (or "APA") provides five general principles in its ethical code of conduct, the document scientists are meant to use to govern ethical decision-making in experiment design and implementation. Milgram's work does not defy any of these principles, which are given