Analysis Of Stanley Milgram 's ' The Perils Of Obedience '

In Derren Brown’s reenactment of psychologist Stanley Milgram’s experiment done in 1963, he solidified Milgram’s results by having the same framework as Milgram’s experiment. Milgram tested to see how much harm a person were to inflict if told to by an authoritative figure. In this particular experiment, a learning environment was set up, subjects were told that the focus was to see how negative punishment affects learning and they were told that they would be either a teacher or learner in the set up. All of the subjects in both Milgram’s and Brown’s situation were teachers and an actor, who all the subjects assumed to be another subject, as a learner. Learners were attached to a shocking mechanism ranging from 15 to a lethal 450 volts,

In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram reports from his studies of how far an individual can go in obedience to instructions and he pointed out that individuals can go as far as causing serious harm to the other people. Basically, the experiments are meant to test the choice that an individual would make when faced with the conflict of choosing between obedience to authority and obedience to one’s conscience. From the tests, it was found out that a number of people would go against their own conscience of choosing between what is wrong and what is right so as to please the individual in authority (Milgram 317). However, the experiments conducted by Milgram caused a wide range of controversy for instance; according to Diana Baumrind, the experiments were immoral. Baumrind notes in ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that Milgram did not only entrap his subjects, but he also potentially caused harm to his subjects (Baumrind 329). Based on the arguments that have been presented by the two authors, it is apparent that the two authors are concerned with real life situations, authority and ethics but the difference is that they both view these perspectives from different points of view as indicated by their writings. By and large, they also tend to show the importance or the insignificance of the experiments.

The Milgram Experiment conducted at Yale University in 1963, focused on whether a person would follow instructions from someone showing authority. Students (actors) were asked questions by the teachers (participants), if the students got the answer wrong they would receive a shock each higher than the previous. The shocks ranged from Slight shock (15v) to Danger! (300v) to XXX (450v). Stanley Milgram wanted to know if people would do things just because someone with authority told them to, even if it was hurting someone. I believe that the experiment was a good way to test the obedience of people

Milgram proved his belief be a series of 20 experiments with 1000 participants. He studied how people would respond to outright commands given by someone of authority to give punishment on a learning. So, if the learner gives the wrong answer the teacher(participant) would admit a bolt of electric shock delivered by a switch. Would the participants be obedient to the social constraints of authority or disobey the authority(experimenter), hence, delivering a bolt of shock or not delivering a bolt of shock? Also, at what level will the participant disobey and refuse to give punishment to the learner? Personally, I feel my best choice if I was a participant in the study is the choice from the beginning of the experiment to not continue to participate. Still, I think it is very possible to get wrapped up in wanting to please the authorities persuasion and submit to their direction, then, the outcome is giving punishment to the learner long after my moral sense tells me to stop. Ultimately, if the study was conducted today many people believe our culture in America has not changed enough to get a different outcome in a study like Milgram’s

The Excerpt “The Peril of Obedience by Stanley Milgram discusses an experiment testing on individuals through cruel and unmoral experiments. After reading Milgram’s text about the experiments conducted to see if individuals would compile with authority even if the command was unmoral. Stanley Milgram, an excerpt From “The Perils of obedience”, states that Milgram is making the following statement concerning the condition of the experiment: “This condition of the experiment undermines another commonly offered explanation of the subjects’ behavior- that those who shocked the victim at the most severe levels came only from sadistic fringe of society” (Milgram 699). By stating this Milgram explains that even if it means harming other human beings

Milgram conducts an experiment to examine the act of obeying, and shows concrete instances. He pressures the subjects to behave in a way conflicting with morality. In the experiment, the experimenter orders the subject to give increasing electro shocks to an accomplice, when he makes an error in a learning session. The situation makes the subject

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist from Yale University, conducted a series of experiments on obedience to explain some of the concentration camp horrors perpetrated during World War II. He tested the subjects' willingness to cause pain to another person if instructed to by an authority figure.

“Saul McLeod.” The Milgram Experiment, Saul Mcleod, 1 Jan. 1970, www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html. American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3. There were a lot of things wrong with The Milgram Experiment that needed to be changed to meet the APA's Code of Conduct. First “Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity” that something Milgram Experiment didn’t have, again when the participant wanted to quit the scientist wanted to continue with the experiment not caring to see if the subject was alright or alive. Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, there were 30 switches on the shock generator, as a result, each time when the subject makes a mistake, increasing the level of electric shock that can easily harm them. If the participants refused to administer a shock or can’t continue they were giving prods to ensure they continued. My conclusion The Milgram Experiment is that I understand people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even though of harming an innocent human being. People tend to obey orders whatever they are told too and believe whoever is telling them what to

This paper explores seven peer-reviewed articles that analyze the Milgram Experiment and its results on people’s obedience to authority. The articles range from describing the experiment’s origins to analyzing factors that went into the participant’s compliance such as Strain Resolving Mechanisms (SRMs) and pressure binding factors (BFs), and additionally, finding trends in personality that correlate with levels of obedience. In the first official trial, 65% of participants had agreed to press all the buttons in a shock machine that they were led to believe would administer a deadly shock to another person (Russell 2011). This paper analyzes what led to such an infamous high percentage, what it reveals about the human psychology, and how it can apply to the current day.

(Hart) Stanley Milgram’s experiment in the way people respond to obedience is one of the most important experiments ever administered. The goal of Milgram’s experiment was to find the desire of the participants to shock a learner in a controlled situation. When the volunteer would be ordered to shock the wrong answers of the victims, Milgram was truly judging and studying how people respond to authority. Milgram discovered something both troubling and awe inspiring about the human race. “Since they were first published in 1963, MIlgram’s sensational findings have been offered as an explanation for mass genocide during the Holocaust and events such as the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and the torture of prisoners in Abu

How far would you go to be obedient? At Yale University, Stanley Milgram set up an experiment testing how much pain a person would cause to an ordinary citizen, only with the reason of being told to do so by an experimental scientist. The subject is told that they are helping with an experiment on punishment-based learning and believe they are conducting this test on someone other than themself. What the subjects do not know is that the true experiment is testing them, not another person. The subjects send an increasing amount of pain to another person. If the subject wishes to discontinue, he must complete the experiment or clearly resist authority. What Milgram found in this study was that adults would go to severe lengths to obey their

Milgram’s experiment relates to how we as humans view obedience and authority. When one gets power the question is how far would they go? Milgram’s experiment demonstrated how a man was not truly getting the shocks but pretended to be in pain. What was surprising was how the man giving the shocks responded, even once he let out some chuckles. It showed how little he cared to the pain and how the abuse of power had given him a sense of inflated ego. The ethics the man once had went out as soon as he had the power and that makes me wonder about the ethics we have. Why do people who gain power begin to abuse it and how their personal values are.

So you can rule out alternative explanations for in this case obedience to authority. There is a large ethical stigma attached to this experiment because obviously the people who believe they are forcibly causing pain to others might be quite alarmed by what’s going on, and they might have felt quite uncomfortable. However it could be perceived important, the ethical issue there is to debrief them and explain why it was necessary. Furthermore Milgram was interested in the three party situation, ‘in which one agent commands another to hurt a third’ which he regarded as a significant theme in human relations (Milgram, 1977: 102). In addition the power relations reflected a social situation which he wished to explore. In the study, the participants responses were predetermined by the researcher, they were required to follow orders. Milgram claimed explicitly ‘we are not dealing with the personal power of the experimenter…but with the consequence of social structure for action (Milgram, 1977:131)

The movie experimenter starring Peter Sarsguard screenplays the story of social psychologist Stanly Milgram and his study regarding obedience in society. This film demonstrated very accurately how the study was truly preformed and the timeline of the story is very accurate. In class we learned of how his study brought out a surprising evidence of human nature and being willing to listen to authority even if they do not want to agree. This film even made a point of explaining the different styles of this study that was done. The evidence discussed in class said how the obedience of participants when down the farther away the researcher stood from them. The film did not show this specific change in the study lay out but it did demonstrate how they rearranged the looks and patterns of the room to see if something as the look of the office affected the obedience of his subjects. Something very important to Milgram’s study is the criticism he received and this film did what I would consider an excellent job of showing how many people were against what he was studying. The book discusses how some of the critiques was that he enjoyed torturing people and causing psychological problems to his subjects and all these things come up during the film after

In Milgram’s experiment, participants were told that they were participating in a study about memory and learning. They were asked to act as a “teacher” a read words to a “learner” on the other side of a wall. The teachers were not aware that the learner was an actor. Teachers were to flip a switch and administer an electric shock to the learner whenever they incorrectly repeated the words. The shock values started at a harmless 15 volts and the teacher was supposed to increase the voltage with each wrong answer all the way to a lethal shock of 450 volts, which was labelled “Danger: severe shock.” Even though many teachers resisted when they heard realistic sounding protests and cries of pain from the learner, 65 percent of teachers still went all the way to 450 volts. One reason they still complied with the experiment was because of the foot-in-the-door technique. Because the teacher started with weak shock levels, “The teacher had already obeyed several times by the time the learner started his protests” (Griggs, 2012, p. 334). This was a foot-in-the-door technique because they already agreed to do smaller tasks, which is why teachers felt more obligated to continue with the heavier task of administering painful shocks. Teachers were also more likely to obey because they were of lesser status