Milgram Experiment On Adolf Hitler

At times the other participant would plead for the experiment to stop. The effect the administrator had on each subject was tremendous. Among many others, some factors that affected the participant’s obedience included the appearance of the instructor, directions provided, and the setting of the experiment at a prestigious university. The instructor made the participants believe that they were obligated to continue administering shocks through his words, appearance and tone of voice.

Lastly, this experiment violated Principle E because it caused people to question if they were a good person or not considering they were causing harm to another person that could have been avoided. The moderators of the experiment were not respecting the subjects due to the fact that are causing unnecessary stress.

He conducted 18 different variations of the original experiment. When changing different variables the obedience percentage dropped significantly. These variations showed that when the “authority” figure was wearing some sort of uniform the obedience levels would rise but when the participants question their authority they percentage decreased. In other variations the learner and the teacher were placed in the same room so the teacher can experience the pain the learner was going through. In this variation the obedience fell too. Throughout all of the variations the percentage of participants administering the maximum 450 volts decreased significantly when different variables were added to the

During the experiment, if the teacher said that they did not wish to continue, the experimenter encouraged them to go on. He said that it was vital that they proceed until the test was over. Baumrind brings up a good point by suggesting that Milgram’s comparison of SS men in Nazi Germany to the teacher is faulty. Although they both instructed their “teachers” on what to do and made it seem as though the victims deserved what they were getting, the SS men would not have perceived their authority figures as benign researchers in a lab. The SS men were led to believe that their victims were unimportant not even worthy of consideration. She alleges this by saying, “He did not need to feel guilt or conflict because within his frame of reference he was acting rightly” (Baumrind 228), which describes how the SS men felt while torturing their victims.

In many situations, there have been authority figures with mass followings. Often the power the leader holds over their followers can influence them to do negative things. Many people believe that they can be independent enough to resist any pressure put on them by an authoritative figure. If this was true, then why do genocides mark the pages of history books around the world? Stanley Milgram sought to answer this budding question. He used his scientific authority to conduct an experiment which would reveal that most people would succumb to authority and obey their commands. This contradicts what most people would like to believe about themselves and their morals. Many people believe that they would never harm another human being, even under pressure from an authoritative figure, the Stanley Milgram Experiment proves that this is false. Although the experiment left its participants psychologically harmed, the results discovered why genocides continue to happen. Most people collapse under the pressure and obey any command given to them rather than doing what they believe is right.

The main purpose of this experiment was to test exactly how far a person can go with the inhumanity and finally come to their senses of

For instance, when the experiment supervisor told “Troy” to continue with the painful shocks he hesistanly complied with the orders, even though he displayed a sense of discomfort. He stated, “I cannot tell you why I listened to him and kept going.”. It is clear that authority figures can cause a person to put another person in physical and mental agony. This quote shows the viewer that pressure from those above someone can tempt them to do things that are asked of them, even if they are unsure in doing so. Furthermore, when the shockers were getting interviewed, they implied that they were being forced to follow through with the experiment, and that they couldn’t leave the experiment incomplete.

In the article, “The Perils of Obedience,” Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, published the findings of his infamous human authority experiment. During this trial, human subjects were tested to discern how far one will go in order to obey the commands of an authority figure. The test subjects were fooled into believing someone was actually being shocked; however, the reality was the other person was simply an actor and never received any shocks. The results were astounding: sixty-five percent of the subjects continued the entire 450 volts, while the rest lasted until at least 300 volts. In response to the experiment, Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkley, examined the actions and moral issues executed by

The two experiments were a tested at different time periods and for different purposes. For instance, the Milgram experiment was originally tested to study obedience to authority, in response to Adolf Eichmann trial, a Nazi war criminal, that stated he,” was just stating orders under the Reich.” The experiment proved to be that under authority rule, actions, even if morally wrong and unethical can be still taken forward with due to a strict authority presence.

While the participants weren't warned that they had the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, some of them still did. Stanley addressed that the study was about obedience and orders were important. The experimenter only respond with answers like “Please continue.” and “The experiment requires that you continue.” I believe that a study like this should still be carried out.

The teacher’s desire to to disobey authority (in this case the scientist) was the initiation by the thought if he would be responsible for the learner’s injuries. After asking many times if he was responsible for the injuries the experimenter replied “I’m responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue please.” And the teacher was able to continue knowing he wasn’t that he was simply just obeying orders. (Obedience to Authority: Milgram- Page 654)

The first experiment was one most related to fear. He had one test subject be the teacher, and the other be the learner, the teacher would shock the learner every time they got a question wrong. The teacher, however did not know that the learner was not actually getting shocked. Most of the teachers wanted to stop and check on the learner in fear for his safety, but the experimenter in the room told them to continue despite any concerns. Many listened to the experimenter because he was of higher authority and they believed him when he said that it was okay to continue.

Just like in “The Perils of Obedience” we see that the scientist were shocking people while patients obeyed the experimenter. The patients were afraid to disobey because they thought there was a chance that they weren’t going to get the money that was

Before Milgram’s findings, the fact that people were inclined to obey to authority figures was already realized. He just confirmed this belief. Milgram followed effective steps by using precise procedures. He made sure that the experiment reflected features of an actual situation in which a person would obey to an authority figure: offering compensation (monetary reward in this experiment), being under pressure (Prods 1 to 4 in this case), and mentioning that the person who obeys can withdraw. These features can also be seen in a situation where a soldier is commanded to fire, for instance. A soldier will get a monetary compensation, is under pressure to obey because he chose to be part of the military, and he knows that he can resign at any time. Milgram created an experiment so precise and detailed that more than enough evidence was demonstrated.

The results showed that those not in the control group inflicted higher shocks to the learner subject (Milgram, 1965 as cited in Macaulay. J. and Berkowitz. L. 1970). This suggests that those who thought the experiment was being run by a highly prestigious research organisation, using moral reasoning, took less responsibility for their actions.