Essay about Unchecked Obedience

Obedience and Conformity Both obedience and conformity involve social pressure in obedience the pressure comes from behaving as you are instructed to do; whereas in conformity the pressure comes from group norms Behaviour in obedience is determined by social power, whereas in conformity it is influenced mostly by the need for acceptance. In nearly all societies, certain people are given power and authority over others. Our society, for example, parents, teachers, and managers are invested with various degrees of authority. Most of the time, this does not cause any problems.

The purpose of Stanley Milgram writing his “The Perils of Obedience,” is to show to what extent an individual would contradict his/her moral convictions because of the orders of an authority figure (Milgram 78). He constructed an experiment wherein an experimenter instructs a naïve subject to inflict a series of shocks of increasing voltage on a protesting actor. Contrary to Milgram’s expectations, about sixty percent of the subjects administered the highest voltage shock. (Milgram 80). According to Milgram, experiment variations disproved the theory that the subjects were sadists. (Milgram 85). Milgram states that although the subjects are against their actions, they desire to please the experimenter, and they often

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.

Firstly, this essay will discuss the work by Stanley Milgram (1963) and his obedience studies which used technology to see how far people would obey an authority figure. I will follow this with the ethics argument that surrounded it, noting the issues raised by Diana Baumrind (1964). An updated version of Milgram’s (1963) experiment, carried out by Mel Slater and colleagues (2006) which used technology to replicate it. Moving on, friendship will be examined with the work of Brian Biegelow and John La Gaipa (1975), and other work by William Corsaro (2006).

There is a vast amount of research that continues to prove the importance of situational factors in determining human behavior. One of the most profound experiments that helped to prove situational importance was the study conducted by Stanley Milgram. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience,” Stanley Milgram summarized his experiments on the effects of obedience to authority, even when the authority commanded the subject to harm another person.

Baumrind fairly claims the “laboratory is not the place” to conduct studies of obedience as the laboratory tends to increase the number of variables above what is desired (Baumrind 90). Science Magazine defends Baumrind’s claim by conducting an experiment directed toward answering the question of the reproducibility of previously conducted psychological experiments. The data collected shows a significant decrease in the strength of the data collected and the number of experiments deemed reproducible was much smaller than those which were reproducible (“Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science”). If the experiment’s results are correct, then Baumrind has fairly contested the integrity of the results of the experiment conducted by Milgram since his results have a stronger chance of not being reproduced in a laboratory than of being reproduced in a laboratory. Milgram adds credibility to his article by mentioning the population from which the subjects were drawn. Initially, Milgram enlists Yale undergraduates to volunteer for his study which led to results consistent with his study, but severely taints the credibility of his experiment. He then modifies his experiment and enlarges to volunteer population to include that of anyone living in the city (Milgram 80-81). His

In his article “The Perils of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment to determine if the innate desire to obey an authority figure overrides the morality and consciousness that had been already established in an individual. After Milgram conducted his experiments he concluded that 60% of the subjects complied to an authority figure rather than their own morals. There was additional testing outside the US which showed an even higher compliance rate. Milgram reasoned that the subjects enjoyed the gratification from the experimenter, who was the authority figure in the experiment. He noted that most of the subjects are "proud" to carry out the demands of the experimenter. Milgram believed for this was the reason, why the German

This paper explores seven peer-reviewed articles that analyze the Milgram Experiment and its results on people’s obedience to authority. The articles range from describing the experiment’s origins to analyzing factors that went into the participant’s compliance such as Strain Resolving Mechanisms (SRMs) and pressure binding factors (BFs), and additionally, finding trends in personality that correlate with levels of obedience. In the first official trial, 65% of participants had agreed to press all the buttons in a shock machine that they were led to believe would administer a deadly shock to another person (Russell 2011). This paper analyzes what led to such an infamous high percentage, what it reveals about the human psychology, and how it can apply to the current day.

Milgram’s experiment relates to how we as humans view obedience and authority. When one gets power the question is how far would they go? Milgram’s experiment demonstrated how a man was not truly getting the shocks but pretended to be in pain. What was surprising was how the man giving the shocks responded, even once he let out some chuckles. It showed how little he cared to the pain and how the abuse of power had given him a sense of inflated ego. The ethics the man once had went out as soon as he had the power and that makes me wonder about the ethics we have. Why do people who gain power begin to abuse it and how their personal values are.

Obedience and Disobedience has been a part of key moments in history. Many have studied forms of obedience to learn how it affects people and situations. For example, Stanley Milgram conducted a well-known experiment in which the subject, named the “teacher” must shock the “learner” every time he doesn’t remember a word pair from a memory test. The focus of this study is on the teacher, and whether they will administer killing shocks when told to by an authority figure. Another well-known experiment is the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. A group of college boys were separated into two groups, prison guards and prisoners, and were put

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

Task: outline and evaluate findings from conformity and obedience research and consider explanations for conformity (and non-conformity), as well as evaluating Milgram’s studies of obedience (including ethical issues).

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 Causes of Resistance to Obedience Resistance to obedience is affected or influenced by many contributing factors but can be defined as “The act of defying an order from an authority figure despite pressures to obey. The same factors that reduce obedience can be used to explain increased resistance, for example the proximity of the victim.” There are numerous ways in which people resist obedience which are determined by changes in circumstances in which they deal with authority. A situational factor has an influence on resistance to obedience

One of the most known study of obedience was conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram (“Milgram”). This experiment was focusing on the effects of people’s obedience to authority and their own conscious thoughts and beliefs when it came to harming another person (“Milgram”). Milgram advertised for male participants of varying ages and jobs to be in a Yale University study (“Milgram”). The participant was paired with another person who each had to draw straws to see who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner” (“Milgram”). However, this draw was fixed that so the teacher would always be the participant and the learner would