Differences Between The Obedience Experiment And The Milgram Experiment

In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist at Yale, conducted a series of experiments that became famous. Unsuspecting Americans were recruited for what purportedly was an experiment in learning. A man who pretended to be a recruit himself was wired up to a phony machine that supposedly administered shocks. He was the "learner." In some versions of the experiment he was in an adjoining room. The unsuspecting subject of the experiment, the "teacher," read lists of words that tested the learner's memory. Each time the learner got one wrong, which he intentionally did, the teacher was instructed by a man in a white lab coat to deliver a shock. With each wrong answer the voltage went up. From the other room came recorded and convincing protests from the learner — even though no shock was actually being administered.

The Milgram experiment was conducted in 1963 by Stanley Milgram in order to focus on the conflict between obedience to authority and to personal conscience. The experiment consisted of 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, and who’s jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. The roles of this experiment included a learner, teacher, and researcher. The participant was deemed the teacher and was in the same room as the researcher. The learner, who was also a paid actor, was put into the next room and strapped into an electric chair. The teacher administered a test to the learner, and for each question that was incorrect, the learner was to receive an electric shock by the teacher, increasing the level of shock each time. The shock generator ranged from

Milgram was interested on learning if people would hurt someone if given instructions to do so, Stanley Milgram recruited 40 males, ages ranging between 20 and 50 with jobs varying from unemployed to professionals. The participants drew straws to determine their positions (Learner or Teacher) although this was rigged so an actor was chosen as the learner every time and the volunteer as the teacher. As the learner got a question wrong the teacher would administer a shock, each wrong question the intensity of

Milgram states, “two people come to a psychology laboratory to take part in a study of memory and learning” (WRAC 215). Because the participants were completely unaware of the true intentions of the experiment, Milgram believed they would act in a controlled way to generate proper results. This meant he could not ask for true consent for the experiment without jeopardizing the data. The importance of consent to Milgram was the lack there of it. While the test proceeded, more and more of the teachers started to break down from the stress. To compensate, Milgram explains that after the test was either finished or terminated, an effort was made to correct the psychological damage. Baumrind disagrees, having completely different view on the issue of consent. She argues that it is unfair to the participant to not receive their consent for an experiment that could be potentially traumatizing. Baumrind states that, “To guarantee that an especially sensitive subject leaves a stressful experimental experience in the proper state sometimes requires special clinical training” (WRAC 227). She continues by exclaiming that, “the subject has the right to expect that the psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively” (WRAC 227). Baumrind does not believe Milgram was in any position to successful and safely completely the experiment because he made no

Stanley Milgram, established a new course of study in the psychology of obedience. The purpose of his experiment was to have an idea of to see how people react the autocritical standard; during his experiment, he recorded how people will behave when given a source of power. Milgram gained this idea after the World War II. He believed that some people had the ability to essentially block out human thoughts of morals, ethics, and sympathetics when assigned to a job. The core issue that Milgram faced was finding a way to create a situation to test his theory; because behavior is such a complicated aspect of psychology to test, Milgram had to properly execute the experiment without physical harm from one person to another.

In her article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”, psychologist Diana Baumrind criticizes Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority, stating that not only were Milgram’s experiments unethical but so was the scientist himself, claiming that he did not take appropriate measures to properly ensure his subject’s wellbeing post-experiment and therefore, experiments such as these should not be repeated. Baumrind does address an important point in her review and that is the responsibility of psychologists to ensure that their subjects are treated fairly and ethically but this is overshadowed by the fact that Baumrind’s argument is one rooted in pathos with little evidence to support her claims while being

In Stanley Milgram’s article “The Perils of Obedience,” several people volunteer to participate in Milgram’s experiment. It consists of a learner and a teacher. When the learner fails to memorize a word pair, the teacher applies a shock to the learner. The shocks increase in severity with each wrong answer, attaining a maximum voltage of 450 volts. Milgram states many psychiatrists he interviewed before the experiment predicted most subjects would not go past 150 volts, or the point at which the learner starts to ask to leave (Milgram 80). In his first experiment, twenty-five out of forty subjects continued the experiment until the end (Milgram 80). After several more experiments at different locations, Milgram obtained the same results. Milgram

Stanley Milgram’s (1963) study of behavioral obedience sought to understand the nature that drives humans to submit to destructive obedience. In his study, Milgram deceived his subject volunteers into believing that the experiment they were submitting themselves to involved learning about the effects of punishment on learning. Under this pretext, a subject “teacher” was to administer electric shocks to a confederate “learner” for every wrong answer in a word-pairing exercise. The subject was to administer shocks in increments, even when the learner protested. The experimenter’s role was to pressure the subjects to continue when they wanted to stop (Milgram, 1963). In doing so, Milgram sought to gauge what it is that influences his subjects

Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most controversial psychological experiments of all time: the Milgram Experiment. Milgram was born in a New York hospital to parents that immigrated from Germany. The Holocaust sparked his interest for most of his young life because as he stated, he should have been born into a “German-speaking Jewish community” and “died in a gas chamber.” Milgram soon realized that the only way the “inhumane policies” of the Holocaust could occur, was if a large amount of people “obeyed orders” (Romm, 2015). This influenced the hypothesis of the experiment. How much pain would someone be willing to inflict on another just because an authority figure urged them to do so? The experiment involved a teacher who would ask questions to a concealed learner and a shock system. If the learner answered incorrectly, he would receive a shock. Milgram conducted the experiment many times over the course of 2 years, but the most well-known trial included 65% of participants who were willing to continue until they reached the fatal shock of 450 volts (Romm, 2015). The results of his experiment were so shocking that many people called Milgram’s experiment “unethical.”

Furthermore, Baumrind calls attention to Milgram’s nonchalant affirmation that all subjects received a debriefing procedure following the trial to ensure that they left the laboratory at ease: when emotional and physical disturbance as well as deception is involved, a simple procedure may not be adequate (Baumrind 92). Peter C. Baker, a writer for Pacific Standard and author of the article “Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram’s Famous Obedience Experiments Prove Anything?” reveals that the debriefing sessions were mainly utilized to relax distressed subjects and not

In the early 1960’s Stanley Milgram (1963) performed an experiment titled Behavioral Study of Obedience to measure compliance levels of test subjects prompted to administer punishment to learners. The experiment had surprising results.

The Milgram studies were studying obedience. The subjects were told that they were studying the effects of punishment on learning. The experiment was done by delivering an electrical shock whenever the wrong answer was given.

The Milgram experiment was designed and performed by Yale University social psychologist Stanley Milgram in

Obedience study” was a experiment help by Stanley Milgram, subjects were told that they were participating in a study on the effect of punishment on memory. One “participant” in the study - the “learner” (“Mr. Wallace” - real name Bob McDonough) was a confederate of Milgram and one was the true subject - the “teacher”. The teacher was told to shock the learner when the leaner gave a wrong answer. The “teachers” were given a shock of 45 volts to convince them that the shocks were real. The learner’s response to the questions is scripted. At 150 volts the “learner” is heard asking that the experiment stop. If the “teacher” denied continuing the experiment, the experimenter would say “Please continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “It is

The Milgram Experiment was an experiment used to explain why Nazi soldiers obeyed inhumane orders. This experiment was performed by Stanley Milgram at Yale University; the experiment consisted of a “teacher,” a participant, and a “learner,” an actor (Milgram). The instructions were that the learner had to memorize random words and the teacher had to shock the student, starting at fifteen volts of electricity; then, the voltage was increased by fifteen volts for every wrong answer It was observed that although the teacher heard the dreadful screams, they continued to send shocks for the mistakes, “Despite the fact that many subjects experience stress, despite the fact that many protest to the experiment, a substantial proportion continue to the last shock on the generator. May subjects will obey the