Stanley Milgram’s Behavioral Study of Obedience Essay

(2009) replicates Milgram’s infamous obedience experiment in order to explore the concept of obedience in modern society. According to Burger (2009), although Milgram’s obedience studies pushed ethical boundaries, the results from his experiments had a profound effect on social psychology in regards to obedience (p.1). In the article, Burger argues against the claim that the Milgram experiment psychologically damaged its participants. In response to critiques he states that the results from the follow-up questionnaires Milgram gave to the participants show that they were happy to have taken part in the study. Nevertheless, Milgrams study generated a debate about

The Milgram Obedience Study was an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1963 to observe how far people would obey instructions that resulted in harming another individual. The experiment consisted of a “learner” engaging in a memory task and a “teacher” testing the “learner” on the task, administering electrical shocks to the “learner” each time an incorrect answer was given; the electric shocks started out small from 15 volts, labeled as “SLIGHT SHOCK”, all the way to 450 volts, labeled as “X X X”—of course, that was what the participant was told. The true purpose of the experiment was not disclosed until after the experiment and the “random selection” of who would be the “teacher” or “learner” was rigged so that the participant was always the “teacher” and the “learner” was always an actor. The shocks, naturally, were never given to the “learner”, and the “learner” gave responses that were scripted, both in answers to the questions and in responses to the shocks.

Stanley Milgram writes about his shocking experiment in “Perils of Obedience.” Milgram writes on the behaviors that the people had during the experiment. Milgram had an experiment that involves two people. One person was a student and the other a teacher. The student was strapped into an electric chair and was required to answer certain questions. The teacher asked a certain word, and the student must know the pair that goes with it. If the student answered the question incorrectly, the teacher must shock the student. Each time the student answered a question incorrectly, the volts increase. Milgram was expecting the teachers to back out of the experiment once they saw the student in pain for the first time, but surprisingly enough, more than sixty percent of the teachers obeyed the experimenter and continued on with the experiment, reaching up to four-hundred-fifty volts. After three times of the four-hundred-fifty volt shock, the experiment was called to halt.

The complexities of a human’s willingness to submit to another person’s will have intrigued mankind since the formation of societal groups. Only in recent history has there been any studies conducted which so completely capture the layman’s imagination as the obedience experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram. As one of the few psychological experiments to have such an attention grabbing significance, Milgram discovered a hidden trait of the human psyche that seemed to show a hidden psychotic in even the most demure person. Milgram presents his startling findings in “The Perils of Obedience”. Publication created a great deal of discussion, with one of the more vocal critics being Diana Baumrind, who details her points of contention in the

The experimenter in the study is the authority figure, constantly pressuring the teacher to carry out the experiment. When the voltages increased, the learner will cite about their heart issues in order to invoke a sympathetic response in the teacher meanwhile the experimenter is pushing the teacher to continue the experiment. Most teachers, at this point, would often get into an argument with the experimenter and would contemplate with their own morality whether or not to continue the experiment. The experiment is stopped when the teacher refuses to continue or the teacher has reached the maximum amount of voltage possible.

On arriving for the experiment they were told that they would play he role of the teacher. They were to read a series of words pairs to an individual on the opposite side of a partition. They were to test the individuals' memory by giving him a word and asking him to select the correct matching word from four alternatives. Each time the learner made an error, they were to give him/her an electric shock at the touch of a lever. The individual was strapped into an electric chair while they watched. The teachers had levers in front of them labelled from 15 to 450 volts and switches labelled from slight shock to danger: severe shock to the final ‘XXX'. They were instructed to move one lever higher on the shock generator each time the learner made an error. There were not of course any shocks.

The experimenter would show the participant along with a confederate a shock generator with voltages of 15v to 450v (30 switches in 15v increments). Participants were told this was connected to a chair in another room. They then drew lots to decide who would be the “teacher” in charge of shocks and who the “learner” receiving shocks (the outcome was rigged for the participant to be the teacher). The confederate was then strapped into the chair, and the participant was given a sample shock of 45v from the generator (the only real shocks given during the experiment) and the experiment would begin. Word pairs were read out which the teacher would ask questions on through an intercom. Wrong answers received a shock which increased with each incorrect response. If the participant reached 450v they would repeat that level twice before the experiment was concluded. Any questioning or refusal to continue was met with standard answers from the experimenter such as “although the shocks are painful, there is no permanent tissue damage” or “the experiment requires that you continue”.

The Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment applies to morally right behaviors. The man sending the electric shocks knew it wasn’t right to torture the other one by getting the questions incorrect. So he wanted to call it quits, due to him knowing he was causing unreasonable pain to others, not knowing that the other person was an actor. The man suggested to stop but professor Milgram who is the authority figure encouraged him to continue, making him ignore the feeling of the wrong he was doing.

1. Stanley Milgram conducted a study on obedience after he had been long intrigued by the way that people conform in social settings like being in large groups or being under direct authority figures. An example of conformity that intrigued him the most was how the Nazi’s in Germany, who years previous were normal people, could engage in one of histories most disturbing genocides. Milgram’s study consisted of forty males who were split up into two groups, teacher and learner (accomplice of the study). The teacher would be in a room with an actor pretending to be a doctor or psychologist, the actor would wear a lab coat to show authority over the teacher.

Human behaviorist’s have long studied changes in people’s behavior as it relates to obedience in authoritative relationships. Two of the most renowned obedience studies were conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, in which they each tested reactions to authority using important variables that were manipulated throughout their experiments. However, some psychologists, like Dina Baumrind, a psychologist for the Institute of Human Development, believe experiments that test humans impetuous reactions should not be conducted unless the subject is well-informed of the purpose. Baumrinds, “Review of Stanley Milgrams Experiments on Obedience” criticizes the accuracy of Milgrams study and further explores the emotional response those

Milgram’s original study into obedience came under to a lot of scrutiny because of both mythological and ethical problems. This meant that the validity of Milgram’s study was put into question. Following the study were further investigations to see what might change and explain the results that Milgram found, both by Milgram himself and other psychologists. Variations to his study throw up interesting theories to the situational and dispositional factors that might affect levels of obedience.

The experimenter and teacher then returned to the experimental room, occupied by an ominous-looking shock delivery machine. Here, experimenter instructed the teacher to read the first word of each word pair followed by four options. The learner’s task was to choose which of the four had been previously paired with the first word. Each time the learner was incorrect, the teacher was to administer an electric shock. Additionally, with each successive incorrect response, the severity of the shock was to be increased. The lowest level was relatively harmless, just 15 volts, and labeled on the machine as a “slight shock.” As the severity of the shock increased, so did the machine’s labels, through “Moderate,” “Strong,” “Very Strong,” “Intense,” “Extreme intensity,” and “Danger: Severe shock” until finally reaching a level the English language apparently had no words to describe, starkly labeled “XXX,” marking the final two levers designed to deliver 435- and 450-volt shocks,

Throughout Milgram’s Study of Obedience, the participants’ right to withdrawal was not adequately covered. Withdrawal rights should enable participants to withdraw without explanation or reprisal. (Brown, 2018). Although Milgram stated participants were able to withdraw, verbal cues given by the experimenter convinced participants that they were unable to withdraw immediately. When participants requested to withdraw due to the distress of hearing screams of the learner, rather than allowing them to leave instantly, the experimenter would state a set of

Subjects were required to shock a person, from an authority figure, whenever the person would give an incorrect

The learner, which is an actor, is put in another room and believed to be getting these shocks because of an audio, provided by the lab, of the learner releasing sounds of pain and loud complaining. Milgram states that “At 285 volts, his response can be described only as an agonized scream” (Milgram 10). Because the subjects are “inflicting increasing pain on a protesting victim” (Milgram 9) by the order of an experimenter, the subjects believe that they will not and do not have to assume any responsibility if anything happens to the learner who is “receiving” shocks. Milgram finds it astonishing that the subjects will continue to willing cause pain for someone if they are ordered to do so.