The Man Who Shocked The World By Milgram

Personally, researching this experiment made me extremely uncomfortable just because I do not believe in causing unnecessary harm to someone who does not deserve it. In this case, harm is the unnecessary stress since the accomplice of the experiment was not actually shocked, he just acted like it. I think that the moderators of the experiment, especially Milgram, should have been upfront in the ad placed in the newspaper over what was going to actually be happening to the people who volunteered. The way the readings and the video made it sound was that it was just a surprise over what actually happened to the subjects. It is shocking to me that he thought that this was something that was morally and ethically right.

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

The case study that I have chosen for this particular paper comes under the section ‘Thinking Critically 1.2’ titled ‘The Man Who Shocked the World’. The case study mainly revolves around a controversial psychological experiment conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, a 28-year-old psychologist at Yale University who was also a Harvard graduate with a PhD. He basically chose to study human behavior and provide insights on the capacity of the members of the human race to inflict harm on each other. In order to carry out this study, he advertised for and chose participants from the general public who were only told that they would be volunteers in an experiment on punishment and learning.

With each wrong answer came an electric shock that the teacher, a random male participant, had to physically cause. The teacher could hear the learner after a while begging to stop. At this point the teachers causing the pain are obviously uncomfortable. Some start by laughing nervously and other just immediately beg to stop the experiment. At this point the experimenter gives a series of orders to push the teacher to continue. As a result, two-thirds of participants carried on shocking the learner to the highest level of four hundred and fifty volts. All the participants involved continued up to three hundred

In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.

In 1974 Stanley Milgram conducted the classic study of obedience to authority. The study looked into how far individuals would be willing to go, and were asked could they deliver increasingly devastating electric shocks to a fellow human being, as they were requested to do so by the professor in charge of the experiment.

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’s shock experiment was of much controversy when it was carried out in the early 1960’s and many questioned its ethical design. Milgram wanted to study the relationship between obedience to authority and moral conscience. To do this, he randomly assigned his participants into two groups, one group being the “learners” and the other, the “teachers”. The teachers and learns were to wait together until they were called in for the experiment. Once called, the teacher would remain in a room with an electric shock generator (to administer shocks the learner) and the “experimenter”, who actually was an actor is a lab coat.

At this point, the Teacher and Learner were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. The Teacher was then given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample what the Learner would supposedly to receive during the experiment. After the Teacher was given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the Learner. The Teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. To respond the Learner would press a button to indicate their answer, if the answer was wrong the teacher would shock the Learner with the voltage increasing by 15-volts for each wrong answer, if correct the Teacher would read the next word pair. The subjects believed that for each wrong answer the Learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After a series of wrong answers the Learner would start complaining about their heart, afterwards there would be no response from the Learner at all. Many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner at this point in the experiment. Some paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment, while most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects even began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress when they heard the screams of the

One might think that this experiment will stimulate the new research in the area of human obedience, but this did not occur. Despite the difficulties and the courage of Burger to conduct a partial replication of the original study, it did not produce any different outcomes and did not spark any new ideas in psychology (Burger, 2009). Instead, the researcher had to deal with an enormous amount of different commentaries and controversy. My main rationale for disapproving the Burger’s study is ethical characteristics of the Milgram paradigm. More specifically, now we have the Ethical Rules of the APA, which tell us that researchers should honor rights of participants to privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw the experiment. However, Milgram’s paradigm clearly challenges these fundamental rights and creates even more ethical dilemmas. Another rationale that I can include is the infliction of increasing pain on an unwilling participant, a characteristic that is unacceptable in modern psychological studies. Therefore, I would disapprove such experiment, because of ethical non-compliance and little contribution to the field. As for me, I view following ethical practices in my dissertation project work as a crucial element for success. It will allow me to produce reliable, meaningful and relevant scholarly data that would not be a subject to ethical

139). Secondly, the teachers were each given a tester shock 45 volts at the beginning of the experiment. Thus, they were aware that they were administering shocks up to ten times more painful than what they experienced. Thirdly, the initial victim-out-cry recordings that the teachers would hear through the walls proved to be inadequate in eliciting any significant disobedient behavior. The need to dramatize the victim’s representation of agony indicated, in Milgram’s words, “ that subjects would obey authority to a greater extend than we had supposed” (Milgram, The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments, 1992, p. 140).

Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most controversial psychological experiments of all time: the Milgram Experiment. Milgram was born in a New York hospital to parents that immigrated from Germany. The Holocaust sparked his interest for most of his young life because as he stated, he should have been born into a “German-speaking Jewish community” and “died in a gas chamber.” Milgram soon realized that the only way the “inhumane policies” of the Holocaust could occur, was if a large amount of people “obeyed orders” (Romm, 2015). This influenced the hypothesis of the experiment. How much pain would someone be willing to inflict on another just because an authority figure urged them to do so? The experiment involved a teacher who would ask questions to a concealed learner and a shock system. If the learner answered incorrectly, he would receive a shock. Milgram conducted the experiment many times over the course of 2 years, but the most well-known trial included 65% of participants who were willing to continue until they reached the fatal shock of 450 volts (Romm, 2015). The results of his experiment were so shocking that many people called Milgram’s experiment “unethical.”

Milgram research was to study conflict between obedience towards authorities and persons conscious. There were a teacher and a learner, teacher would do an electrical shock towards the learner when doing a mistake. Some of the teachers questioned the experiment because of how uncomfortable they were in the situation. Some of the scientists called this experiment unethical because of who is responsible to decide the issues also what right does the researcher have to expose the stress of the person.

In life freedom is realizing you have choices to make. I personally believe that no one should be shock or electrocuted. When someone is electrocuted or shock electric currents is pass through the body to result in death. No one should have to face that option because everyone does not deserve the death penalty based on what another human being thinks. I disagree with Milgram experiment because just by someone making a mistake when talking, the rate of shock shouldn’t increase. By this I mean, having someone in charge of another person life is totally wrong. A disagreement can occur and someone have the option to end that person life. I also do not think you should be able to shock someone for their actions. For example,

(Brennan 2016). All the students surveyed believed that only a very small percentage of teachers would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally surveyed his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few participants would progress beyond a very strong shock. In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65% of the experiment participants gave the maximum 450-volt shock. Milgram however also noticed their behaviour. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment). Many were very uncomfortable administrating the shocks. At some point throughout the experiment, every participant stopped and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for taking part in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, participants displayed varying degrees of anxious behaviour. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures. (McLeod,