The Film Experimenter, By Michael Almereyda

The experiment was a controlled in the sense that each ‘teacher’ heard the same cries of distress from the next room, they all met the same ‘learner’ and so on. This point of the experiment is important because although they were encouraged to continue, surprisingly few exercised their right to stop, most just did as they were told, which was the basis of the defence for many of those at the Nuremburg trials, which preceded the study; “I was just following orders” Banyard (2012). The results seemed to support the hypothesis that people obey those in a position of authority, and Milgram (1963) carried out many variations of this original study.

If I was doing this study, my hypothesis would be that “people, who receive an aversive stimulus every time they give an incorrect answer, will try harder to get the correct answer than those who do not receive anything”. My independent variables, which are the variables that researcher manipulates, would be the electric shocks and the emotional motivation; and my dependent variable, which is the variable that is tested and measured, would be the members’ results.

Stanley Milgram’s psychological experiment described in “The Perils of Obedience” demonstrates an example of individuals following orders from authority, even if they don’t necessarily want to. In this experiment, subjects are told by the experimenter to shock the other test subjects when they answer questions incorrectly. As Milgram describes his experiment further, the reader learns that the majority of the subjects followed orders, even though it was obvious that they did not want to. After the experiment was over, many of the participants were surprised at their willingness to comply with the experimenter and do exactly as they were instructed, despite being fearful of hurting the other subjects. At the end of “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes that many individuals can get themselves in bad situations, where they are hurting others or themselves, not because they are bad people, but because someone they see as authority told them to.

Growing up my family has always thought me to be obedient, but also know the difference between what is right and wrong. I am not saying that my family or I am perfect, but I have always strived to do the right thing. I understand, in society today that we have jobs and responsibility, that sometimes it can compromise our principles, but like every person, we have certain boundaries that we just cannot let ourselves pass. In “The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram, a study was conducted on several subjects to test their obedience and how far they would go to as the “teacher” to administer a shock to a “student “that the authority figure “experimenter” ordered them to give. Among the test subject was Gretchen Brandt, a thirty-one –year –old

Stanley MIlgram is a Yale University social psychologist who wrote “Behavioral Study of Obedience”, an article which granted him many awards and is now considered a landmark. In this piece, he evaluates the extent to which a participant is willing to conform to an authority figure who commands him to execute acts that conflict with his moral beliefs. Milgram discovers that the majority of participants do obey to authority. In this research, the subjects are misled because they are part of a learning experience that is not about what they are told. This experiment was appropriate despite this. Throughout the process, subjects are exposed to various signs that show them

Despite women taking huge steps towards equality, the entertainment during the 1960’s was still an awful representation. Many of the topics in my 1950’s journals discussed the treatment of women in media during the fifties. I assumed as another decade passed, women would be portrayed more respectfully and accurately in many forms of entertainment. I assumed incorrectly. In a majority of what we analyzed, women were still treated like crap. Haskell Wexler’s film, Medium Cool, follows a news cameraman named John Cassellis. This character makes women look like they are just there for men to walk on and completely disrespect. Not only did he seem to be in a relationship with over 3 women, he was extremely disrespectful to them as well. John

Stanley Milgram experiment, he gave some examples from his own experience of obedience and explains how sometimes it is important to obey in order for a system to works; such is the example of the hospital that Dalymple mention in his article, he explains how he had to follow some orders from his superior even if he did not wanted to, because on the inside he knew that it was not right that he disagrees with his superior every time he was not completely agree with him, because then the system of that specific hospital may damage. This is exactly what happens on politics, or even in families; sometimes people that have some hierarchy will make their best to make their system work in every aspect, in order for this to happen they have to give some orders and even make some rules so that other people around them follow them without any

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.

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.

Obedience to authority puts one’s counterparts at risk. Obedience makes people blind to what they are truly doing allowing them to do evil things when instructed by an figure of authority. Stanley Milgram says, “For many people obedience is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, I indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, empathy, and moral conduct.” (217). In other words, people who are obedient to authority sometimes go against their own ethics, emotions, and moral conduct. This rejection of ethics puts other at risk. This idea was tested and proven in the Milgram experiment, which involved two volunteers serving as a teacher and a student. The teacher was required to read word pairs to the student, while the student needed to remember the word pair. The penalty for not remembering the pair was a

In Stanley Milgram’s experiment, “The Perils of Obedience,” one person signed up to aid in a study of learning and memory; this person was the “teacher.” This person did not know the other person accompanying him in the study is an actor. This person was a “teacher” in the study, and the actor was the “learner;” there was another actor, the “experimenter,” who was the authority

In Milgram’s study a participant was told to administer a shock to a person if they answered a question incorrectly. They were told to do this by the experimenter who was wearing a white coat and was portrayed as an authority figure. The participant therefore felt that the responsibility for his actions were being placed on to the experimenters shoulders, rather that their own. The main reason an individual will obey; will be due to the direct response from the high status of the authority figure. Many people would do something that they may not usually do if they were asked to do it by a person in a uniform such as a policeman or a doctor. It is also that they believe they will not be held responsible for their actions as they were only obeying a figure with a higher authority than themselves. Another reason that people may obey another is if there is no clear cut reason why they shouldn’t. If they are told to do something which is considered reasonable by another person, they may obey because there seems no logical reason why they shouldn’t.

These conditions lead to several roles in the classroom that can cause trouble like leaders, clowns, fall guys, and instigators. Redl and Wattenberg's contributions helped teachers work more effectively with students by pointing out humans behave differently in groups than individually. They also provided the first well-organized, systematic approach to improving behavior in the classroom. Redl and Wattenberg (1959) suggested that educators support students' self-control from the position that individuals can be responsible for controlling their own conduct. Much misbehavior results from a temporary lapse of an individual's control system, rather than from a desire to be disagreeable. To mold students' behavior, teachers can use the pleasure-pain principle, in which they deliberately provide experiences to produce a range of pleasant to unpleasant feelings. Redl and Wattenberg emphasize, however, that the pleasure-- pain principle does not mean that a teacher, in the heat of anger, should lash out at a student. Likewise, pain or punishment should not take the form of revenge (Redl & Wattenberg, 1959). Another theory is B.F. Skinner (1904-1990), where

Stanley Milgram, a famous social psychologist, and student of Solomon Asch, conducted a controversial experiment in 1961, investigating obedience to authority (1974). The experiment was held to see if a subject would do something an authority figure tells them, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs and morals. He even once said, "The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act (Cherry).” This essay will go over what Milgram’s intent was in this experiment and what it really did for society.

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