Stanley Milgram vs. Diana Baumrind

1. The researcher in this experiment was psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The study took place at Yale University in the year 1963. The researcher’s hypothesis was that if there is a demanding authoritive figure, then the other person will obey that authoritive figure just because of their position, even if it violates their morality and their ethical beliefs. He based this of his theory that people who would never hurt someone purposely, would if told to do so by a figure of authority.

Obedience is the requirement of all mutual living and is the basic element of the structure of social life. Conservative philosophers argue that society is threatened by disobedience, while humanists stress the priority of the individuals' conscience. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, designed an experiment that forced participants to either violate their conscience by obeying the immoral demands of an authority figure or to refuse those demands. Milgram's study, reported in "The Perils of Obedience" suggested that under a special set of circumstances the obedience we naturally show authority figures can transform us into agents of terror or monsters towards humanity.

The Milgram Experiment violates three of the five principles outlined in the Five General Principles of Ethics. Milgram wanted to see if there was a connection between “the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience” (McLeod, 2007). Milgram’s hypothesis that he based his experiment on was “How the German people could permit the extermination of the Jews?” (Dan Chalenor, 2012). The first one that Milgram’s experiment violated was “Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence” which is where “psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm” (Ethical principles, 2013, p. 3, para. 3). The second principle that was violated was “Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility” which is where

“The Perils of Obedience” was written by Stanley Milgram in 1974. In the essay he describes his experiments on obedience to authority. I feel as though this is a great psychology essay and will be used in psychology 101 classes for generations to come. The essay describes how people are willing to do almost anything that they are told no matter how immoral the action is or how much pain it may cause.

In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.

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 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 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.

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

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.

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

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted a 1963 experiment that originated from the idea of Germans being highly obedient to authority figures, and whether that played a role in the Nazi killings during World War II. The purpose of the experiment was to see if ordinary people, under an immense amount of pressure by an authority figure, would still be obedient regardless of whether something detrimental would happen because of a person’s submissiveness.

All ethical issues that are involved in the Milgram study are deception, harm to the participants, and also the right of withdrawal. Deception played a big part in this study as Milgram was not honest about his study when he was explaining the details to his participants. He deceived the participants as he lied about the study being a memory and learning experiment and not an obedience experiment. Not only did he lie about the study being about obedience but also lied about the electric shocks given to the learners were fake and not real. Herrera (2001) states that by deceiving the participants it could cause harm to the participants, especially towards their self-esteem, as he made the participants believe that the electric shocks were real

The action of believing on what is right according to reality and its own self; make obedience part of each individual responsibility, regardless other people behavior. Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist that conducted in the 1960s one of the most famous studies referring on how people obey or disobey to certain authoritarian instructions. The experiment basically consisted on put in one of the participants to an unclear situation in which they would be required to select either to obey or disobey the instructions given by an authoritative person. The role of the participants was to indicate a set of words to the learner (actor); and the learner must memorize them and connected them to the right answer. If the answer was right, the participant must keep going, but if the answer was wrong, the participant must shock the learner according to the voltage level. Milgram’s obedience studies interpret and unclear and unfamiliar experiment that leads to have an unethical and valid reaction towards its subject; it focus on whether the methods of learning can be accurate and have moral benefits or it can cause potential harm in its subjects.

To begin with I would like to summarize the importance of Milgram’s study in general. If Milgram was unable of completing his study psychologists today would possibly have less of an understanding on human behavior under the command of an authority figure. The overall goal of Milgram's study was based on obedience to an authority figure. More specifically the experimenter would sit and take note on exactly how far the “teacher” would continue administering electrical shocks to the “learner” based on incorrect answers. The inspiration of the study came from the horrific events taken place during holocaust where millions of people suffered until death based mostly on their beliefs. Despite the events that took place, Milgram’s study seeked out the truth on how the militia managing the