Critique Of The Milgrim Experiment

Stanley Milgram’s obedience study is known as the most famous study ever conducted. Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment that focused on the conflict between personal conscience and compliance to command. This experiment was conducted in 1961, a year following the court case of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram formulated the study to answer the question “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974). The investigation was to see whether Germans were specially obedient, under the circumstances, to dominant figures. This was a frequently said explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.

In The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram introduces us to his experimental studies on the conflict between one’s own conscience and obedience to authority. From these experiments, Milgram discovered that a lot of people will obey a figure in authority; irrespective of the task given - even if it goes against their own moral belief and values. Milgram’s decision to conduct these experiments was to investigate the role of Adolf Eichmann (who played a major part in the Holocaust) and ascertain if his actions were based on the fact that he was just following orders; as most Germans accused of being guilty for war crimes commonly explained that they were only being obedient to persons in higher authority.

In the article, “The Perils of Obedience,” Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, published the findings of his infamous human authority experiment. During this trial, human subjects were tested to discern how far one will go in order to obey the commands of an authority figure. The test subjects were fooled into believing someone was actually being shocked; however, the reality was the other person was simply an actor and never received any shocks. The results were astounding: sixty-five percent of the subjects continued the entire 450 volts, while the rest lasted until at least 300 volts. In response to the experiment, Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkley, examined the actions and moral issues executed by

The two studies being analyzed today are the Stanly Milgram experiment and the Slater experiment. The two similar experiments yielded information about obedience to authority that explains the correlation in society between authority, obedience, and morality. Despite the major ethical problems in the Milgram experiment, it is known in social psychology today that human beings will follow orders from authority figures even to the extent of inflicting harm on another. However, even with this fact, it is also known that there is limits to such obedience.

After experiment like this you are supposed to get therapy if you need it. Milgram followed these rules but he still got criticized. I believe that as long as he followed ALL the rules and regulations he shouldn't be bashed. Yet he must not have done everything right or up to standard because people still talk badly about the experiment as of today.

In July 1961, Stanley Milgram began to conduct an experiment to test human obedience at Yale University. He wanted to see how German Nazis could inflict the extermination of the Jewish population, and to see how much pain they would inflict on another person just by giving instructions. Milgram put an ad in the newspaper and he got forty males volunteers between the ages of twenty and fifty. He would choose one of the volunteers and an actor who went by the name Mr. Wallace. They would draw a slip of paper which both said “Teacher”. The actor would say he got “Learner,” and the experiment would begin.

For example, when a man is questioned as to how he was capable of hurting a person to such degree, he responds by claiming he was simply doing his job, implying that all responsibility should fall on the experiment conductor. By creating an excuse to justify his actions and reasoning as to why he violated his beliefs, he demonstrated how fragile his morals are; instead of standing up for his morals, he establishes that he may be capable of murder when requested to by an authority figure. Additionally, Dr. Jerry Burger of The Milgram Experiment Revisited suggests that females are more likely to give in to commands of an authoritative figure due to cultural influences that persuade women into becoming more submissive. This further confirms how mass culture attempts to extinguish contravening beliefs, and thus, how important it is to take a stand for what is right regardless of external pressures, for if not, innocent beings may be forced into suffering without a

I believe that some people can be both good and evil on their own but that groups of people will corrupt the majority and only a few will do good things. The evidence for this belief can be found in the reading ‘The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas’ and the article on The Milgrim Experiment. Both Milgram and Omelas show the good and bad sides of human nature. In both of them a few people walked away but the majority stayed. The differences are that Omelas is about a society while Milgram was about an experiment.

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 selected participants for his experiment by advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.  The procedure was

In accordance to both of the articles on the Milgram experiment, although the experiment does seem to a bit dramatized in terms of the results - I do not believe such inferences do not lack any sort of validity in a real life circumstance. Although it may seem that the conclusions may not be as applicable in a real life situation or seen in such a clear and common manner, the outcome of the study reveals how a person may act in a setting with social pressure. For instance, as illustrated in the article, “Replicating Milgram”, Burger writes, “ … the experimenter presumably had knowledge about the procedure and had gone through many previous sessions, and so participants deferred to his judgment …. this is often the case in real-life examples

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.

In the thought-provoking and factual article, “If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably” (1970), the author, Philip Meyer proves the idea that humans as a whole have the ability to be controlled incredibly easily by an authority figure, often times being so obedient that those humans will perform acts contradicting their moral code. Meyers confirms this with the use of the Stanley Milgram experiment, a very controversial experiment, beginning during the year of 1961, that proved the debilitating effects of the conflict between the need to obey authority and personal conscience. The purpose Meyers is attempting to get across to his readers is the idea that humans are capable of incredibly horrible acts, which he uses

Between the Milgram experiment and all the other little experiments ended up raising a lot of eye brows and controversial discussions about the ethics of doing such research. Subjects were exposed to emotional stress, psychological stress and physical stress while being in the experiment (Cherry). Milgram wanted to answer questions which plagued society for a long time, such as “Was human nature inherently evil or could reasonable average people be coerced by authority into performing unnatural actions?” Many believe the study to be unethical due to the fact that the subjects were not fully aware of what it was Milgram was doing. The subjects were deceived into believing they were causing pain and suffering to another human being, when in reality the victim was not in any suffering or pain at all. The fact that they believe they were causing pain to someone else could have caused the

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