In lecture, Dr. Schreier (September 11, 2016) defined operationalize as the labeling and describing of the variables of interest. In Milgram’s experiment, obedience was his variable of interest. Milgram’s research described obedience as a form of compliance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority (September 8,2016). This definition of obedience was used by Milgram to conduct his experiment. Milgram operationalized his experiment by making it seem like the teachers had to shock the learners no matter how uncomfortable the teacher felt, measuring their level of obedience. This was a very valid way for Milgram to test obedience to authority. The results illustrated that most of the teachers …show more content…
Some suggested after this experiment many people could feel hurt, embarrassed, and not willing to trust those in authority in the future (Hock, 2012). Dr. Burger wanted to replicate Milgram’s experiment in a more ethical approach. He only allowed the teacher to go up to 150 volts of shock because that was the point where he decided, if passed, they would continue to go up the shock scale. The participators were told explicitly and repeatedly that they could leave the study at any time and still keep their $50 (Burger, 2009). However, Dr. Burger observed some people continued to go up the …show more content…
Burger and Milgram’s results has a high generalizability. Dr. Burger’s generalizability positively affects Milgram’s results with respect to obedience to authority in the contemporary life. This is because Dr. Burger added more ethnically diverse people, and he recruited people from all adult ages (Burger, 2009). In lecture, Scherier(September 11,2016) defined generalizability as the ability to reasonably apply the results to other similar populations. This means that the results should be able to applied to other people no matter their race, gender, age, sexuality, etc. This was definitely true in Milgram’s experiment because at first the participants were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50 (Hock, 2012). Then in later replicated experiments that Milgram created, he changed some of the factors like adding woman and different situations for the teacher to be in contact with the learner. All of Milgram and Burger’s experiments were helpful into understanding why people are so willing to obey authority
(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 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
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
Stanley Milgram is a famous psychologist who focused his studies on authority and peoples reaction and obedience to it. His famous experiment and it's results were groundbreaking in psychology, surprising both psychologists and regular people alike. First I will discuss the reason for Milgrims study of obedience to authority. Then I will explain the experiment, its formulation, and its results. Finally I will cover the influence of the experiment on psychology and society.
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.
Milgram conducts an experiment to examine the act of obeying, and shows concrete instances. He pressures the subjects to behave in a way conflicting with morality. In the experiment, the experimenter orders the subject to give increasing electro shocks to an accomplice, when he makes an error in a learning session. The situation makes the subject
Milgram experiment focused on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. In this experiment, three sets of people, the “teacher”, the “learner”, and
In his article, Milgram discusses how “for many people, obedience is a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct”(Milgram 579). Milgram set up an experiment to test the obedience of ordinary people. He tested authority vs the morals of the subjects. He had no theory when he
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 a person. After Milgram conducted his experiments he concluded that 60% of the subjects complied to an authority figure rather than their own sympathy. 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 that reason, why the
Milgram thought at first it would have been easiest for the subjects to administer the shocks because the person the actor was receiving seemingly no pain from the shocks. As the actor started to show signs of distress and pain the subjects only had slight hesitation, but as the authority continuously told the subject the same instructions, the subject would willingly obey. Most of the subjects surprised Milgram and continued the experiment to the end. Milgram believed this was because the subject was routinely following the orders of their seeming authority. The change in reaction of the actor most of the way up the scale was minute enough in each step that each step seemed easier as the subject had just used the level below. According to Milgram, the subject would have thought that if the authority was okay with the next shock and the next shock was not a large jump in voltage, then it would be okay to just go up one more switch. By the time the subjects would have administered deadly shocks, the subject would have been firmly in the process of continuing to follow the original orders that had been repeated multiple times by the authority figure. All the routinization in play would have taken the subjects’ moral compasses and thrown them by the wayside. Only some people with strong morals would have been capable of breaking away from the routinization process and actually following their
Before Milgram’s findings, the fact that people were inclined to obey to authority figures was already realized. He just confirmed this belief. Milgram followed effective steps by using precise procedures. He made sure that the experiment reflected features of an actual situation in which a person would obey to an authority figure: offering compensation (monetary reward in this experiment), being under pressure (Prods 1 to 4 in this case), and mentioning that the person who obeys can withdraw. These features can also be seen in a situation where a soldier is commanded to fire, for instance. A soldier will get a monetary compensation, is under pressure to obey because he chose to be part of the military, and he knows that he can resign at any time. Milgram created an experiment so precise and detailed that more than enough evidence was demonstrated.
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.”
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.
“At the time Milgram's study was big news. Milgram explained his results by the power of the situation. This was a social psychology experiment which appeared to show, beautifully in fact, how much social situations can influence people's behavior. The experiment set off a small industry of follow-up studies carried out in labs all around the world. Were the findings still true in different cultures? By and large the answers were that even when manipulating many different experimental variables, people were still remarkably obedient. (2007)”
The Milgram experiment is probably one of the most well-known experiments of the psy-sciences. (De Vos, J. (2009). Stanley Milgram was a psychologist from Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected people for his experiment by newspaper advertising. He looked for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.