Milgram Experiment Essay

The Milgram experiment is something interesting to test out, and also ethically wrong to do in my opinion. It’s interesting that Milgram wants to test out if people will be obedient to authority. He conducted a research by having the real subjects to

The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote

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

The ethics of the study were however called into question (Banyard, 2012). One protestors among many was Diana Baumrind (Banyard, 2012). Baumrind (1964) argued whether the ‘welfare of the participants’ was considered Banyard (2012, p.79). Baumrind (1964) further criticised the experiment for the damage it could do the public’s perception of psychology (Banyard, 2012). In Milgram’s (1963) defence, he was not ignorant of the potential harm caused to participants, (Banyard, 2012). In fact, he was

The Milgram experiment was ethical, however there are issues within the experiment that may say that it was unethical. The ends of the experiment were to get results from those who were obedient while shocking the “learner” even under a stressful and complicated circumstances. In that time era, there wasn’t a strict control over the ethics of the experiments that had taken place. Today’s modern critics would never let this type of experiment happen if not all the variables were to be predicted before the commence of the experiment. Milgram wanted an answer if a person or group of people would obey even if they are hurting other humans in the process.

Baumrind declares that Milgram’s experiments are unethical because of the possible harm that the teachers are exposed to during the teaching. In an article, published on Yahoo’s Associated Content, the author writes that because of Milgram lying to the subjects about what type of experiment they were participating in was the main reason of unethical interpretations (Associated Content). This reason is in agreement to Baumrind’s beliefs when she writes of the manipulation and embarrassment subjects are beginning to encounter when experiments are taking place. She cites the Ethical Standards of Psychologists, using this to present the standards that Milgram possibly overstepped while conducting the experiments. However when reading the the opening line, “Only when a problem is significant ...

This does not come across as a logical conclusion and sheds light on the illogicality of Baumrind’s argument. Her writing is filled with emotionally loaded terms such as “humiliate”, “manipulate”, “emotional-disturbance”, “traumatic” (295, 296) and claims that Milgram’s experiment relied on deception and harmed its subjects. These are all words that possess negative connotation and conjure up a specific type of negative image when read. By trying to appeal to the emotion of her readers and forgoing logic in exchange, Baumrind overloads her argument with too much emotion and fails to logically prove why Milgram’s experiments should not be replicated.

While the results of Milgram’s experiment are concrete, their application to real life is questioned because of the deception throughout the procedure. The results of the experiment prove that people are likely to obey in a laboratory setting, but Baumrind exposes the difference between a lab and real life. Because the subject is in an unfamiliar setting he has a certain amount of trust in the authority figure (Baumrind

The Milgram experiment is one of the most controversial psychology experiments of the past century. I was familiar with it prior to accessing the simulation on the elearning site from an ABC television Four Corners episode on the nature of torture. So when I participated in the simulation, I stopped administering the shock at the first sign of distress from the subject at thirty watts. If I was in the actual Milgram experiment I would like to believe that I would have behaved in the same way. Human nature dictates that we believe that only abnormal people are capable of sinister behavior. This belief that internal attributions cause certain behaviours assures us of some stability and security in our day-to-day lives and yet the

Diana Baumrind, the author of Review of Stanley Milgram's Experiments on Obedience, writes about how Stanley Milgram's experiments caused emotional disturbances and the ethical issues of it. " The detached, objective manner in which Milgram reports the emotional disturbance suffered by his subjects contrasts sharply with his graphic account of that disturbance" (Baumrind 91). This shows that his subjects sufferedand seemed to be detached. Being opposed to Milgram's experiment, Baumrind explains that his experiments had no "sufficiently accurate models of real-life experience" (Baumrind 92).

The Milgram experiment was to test the power authority has on the common human being. Milgram performed the experiment with two individuals at a time. Two individuals show up for a study and are taken to a room where one is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his

Firstly, it was deception, the participants did not know the true reason for doing the experiment. They were told lies, they were told that the “learners” was also a voluntary participant, and they believed they had a 50:50 chance between them of selecting the role of 'teacher' or 'learner'. Milgram thought that telling the truth might make the participants act for the experiment. But, whatever the result becomes, the participants have the right to know what they are getting their self into. Second, the study was forcing the people who give the shocks.

Between the Milgram experiment and all the other little experiments ended up raising a lot of eye brows and controversial discussions about the ethics of doing such research. Subjects were exposed to emotional stress, psychological stress and physical stress while being in the experiment (Cherry). Milgram wanted to answer questions which plagued society for a long time, such as “Was human nature inherently evil or could reasonable average people be coerced by authority into performing unnatural actions?” Many believe the study to be unethical due to the fact that the subjects were not fully aware of what it was Milgram was doing. The subjects were deceived into believing they were causing pain and suffering to another human being, when in reality the victim was not in any suffering or pain at all. The fact that they believe they were causing pain to someone else could have caused the

The Milgram experiment is probably one of the most well-known experiments of the psy-sciences. (De Vos, J. (2009). Stanley Milgram was a psychologist from Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected people for his experiment by newspaper advertising. He looked for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.

The purpose of Milgram’s experiment was to see how far people would go to obey authority. His scientific methods followed the scientific procedure and produced external validity. There were 20 variations of Stanley Milgram’s experiment some factors remained consistent throughout all variations, while some remained the same, while some changed. The four experimental conditions grew in intensity. In the first condition, also known as remote feedback, the learner was isolated from the subject and could not be seen or heard except at three hundred volts when he pounded on the wall. At three hundred and fifteen volts he was no longer heard from until the end of the experiment. The naive subject was required to keep administering shocks with an unresponsive human at the other end. Put yourself in the teacher’s shoes. In the second condition (voice feedback) the learner was placed in an adjacent room, when he started to shout and protest at lower shock levels he could be heard through the crack in the door. In the third