Stanley Milgram ( 1963 ) Essay

Stanley Milgram ( 1963 ) Essay
Stanley Milgram (1963) was interested in how likely people would obey an authority figure who
instructed them to harm another person. His study involved 40 male participants, aged 20 to 50, who
were recruited through advertisements and mail solicitation. Participants had diverse occupations
and educational levels. They came to a lab where they served as teachers in a supposed learning and
memory experiment. A simulated shock generator with 30 switches was used. It was clearly marked
with voltage levels and verbal designations ranging from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 volts
(danger: severe shock). The participants' task was to administer an electric shock to the learner, a
confederate of the experimenter, whenever he made an error in the memory test, increasing the
intensity of shock each time. When the participant refused to administer a shock, the experimenter
would give a series of prods to the participants to ensure that they continue with the experiment,
even if they reached the marked danger of a severe shock, or heard the learner's screams and
pounding from an adjacent room. The experiment ended when the maximum voltage of shock had
been delivered, or if the participant refused to continue any further. The maximum intensity shock a
participant was willing to administer before he refused to participate any further was measured. The
results showed that 26 out of 40 (65%) participants obeyed the commands of the experimenter to the
end, reaching the most potent shock
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Stanley Milgram Experiment
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. They would hook Mr. Wallace up to a the shock
machine and he would always say he had a heart condition. Once everyone left he would remove

The Perils Of Obedience By Stanley Milgram
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. Obedience to people in authority is a deep–rooted trait
that we all possess by virtue of our upbringing, and as Milgram put it, "it is only the person dwelling
in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others"
(Milgram 1974). This trait is exhibited every day in family circles, workplace and school. People are
most likely to obey instructions from people they perceive their authority to be legal or moral. We
see people obeying their pastors, leaders in various societies and other people they see as higher to
them; and they obey anything they are being told even if it involves killing another human being.
They justify their actions, however wrong, on obedience to authority. After the conclusion of the
experiments and its

Stanley Milgram Experiment Essay
Last class we spoke about The Stanley Milgam Experiments, The Stanford Prison Experiments and
The Asch Conformity Experiments. We discussed authority and what that does to people in
vulnerable or difficult scenarios. This class forced me to question how I've been throughout my life
during traumatic events and how I'll act in the future, should these situations arise.
In the Milgram experiment there was a 'teacher' assigned and a 'student' assigned. The 'teacher'
cannot see their 'student' but can hear them. For every wrong answer the 'student' gives, the 'teacher'
has to shock them. The student is a part of the test, so he is not actually being hurt, but the teacher
thinks he is. Over time, as the shocks get stronger and stronger, the student screams, yells, begs for
the shocks to stop and then goes quiet. The purpose of the experiment was to focus on the ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When have I allowed bad things to happen, because there were peer groups watching as well?
Would I be the one to step up and vocalize the injustice? Would I stay silent, as there were others to
be held accountable? Kitty's death will forever haunt me– I can't imagine how her neighbors felt,
year after year knowing she may be alive if they were to have called 911.
Lastly, we spoke on The Stanford Mock Prison of 1971. Stanford University students were tested for
mental strength– and the healthiest of them were chosen to participate. Half became mock prison
guards, half became mock prisoners. They gave the guards a badge, crowbar, cuffs, etc. and allowed
them to make the false arrests, giving them a sense of power. The prisoners were given numbers, not
called by their names, wore prison clothes, etc.
On the first night prisoners rebelled, laughed and disrespected the guards. But, over time, they fell in
line to their positions. They were strip–searched, punished with solitary confinement and many of
them ended up having to leave due to mental

Stanley Milgram Chapter Summaries
Chapter 2– Obscura Obscura talks about Stanley Milgram and his experiments on obedience to
authority. The purpose of this experiment was to study how far people would go in obeying an
instruction if it involved harming another person. He was interested in how ordinary people could be
easily influenced into committing atrocities, like the Germans in World War II. Milligram selected
subjects for his experiments through newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in his
study. At the beginning of the experiment the subjects were introduce to another participant, who
was actually a part of Milgram's team. They were told to draw from straws to determine their roles,
"learner" or "teacher", but this was fixed and the subject was always the teacher. They were placed
in two separate rooms, the learner was given a set of words ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Alexander believed that there is nothing addictive about drugs and the even constant exposure to
addictive drugs does not lead to problems. In experiments on rats, narcotics were proven to be
addictive since rats would suffer pain just so they can fulfill their need for drugs. However,
Alexander disagreed that the rodents became addicted because of the environment they were kept
in. He believed that if the rodents were kept in an environment that was comfortable and happy, the
rats would not care for the drugs. So he created a "happy" environment calling it "Rat Park", a park
for rats with enough space and clean water, so he can conduct perform a narcotics experiment. One
of Alexanders observations was that in this "happy" environment, the rodents preferred not to
consume the narcotics even if they were previously addicted. Alexander proved that drug addiction
is more likely to occur in sad environments or in times of difficulty. However, if we are happy and
have nearly everything that we want, addiction is not a

Stanley Milgram 's Obedience Study
Psychology 230
Stanley Milgram's obedience study has become one of the most timeless experiments and is thought
of as a work of art. In this experiment, Milgram examined if individuals would take requests from
authority figures regardless if they felt that the requests were ethical or not. Milgram chose members
for this study by daily paper advertising for male participants to partake in an investigation at Yale
University. In World War II, Nazis justified killings by saying that they were simply doing what they
were told. Milgram conducted a study to examine whether the Nazi killings during World War II
occurred because Germans were being submissive to authority figures. Milgram's technique for this
study raised moral issues because ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the instructor stated that "the experiment requires you to continue, you absolutely have to
continue." Two–thirds of the participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts.
All of the participants continued to 300 volts." (Saul McLeod, 2007). In some ways, the Milgram
experiment helps explain how cults are formed. People join cults for many reasons, but they are
regularly misdirected and bamboozled, often being mentally conditioned and taken advantage
because some people do not possess strong will power and are naïve. "Before the Stanley Milgram
Experiment, experts thought that about 1–3% of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They
thought that you would have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so." (Explorable.com, 2008)
Countless arguments surround whether this experiment was unethical. Milgram was intentionally
disingenuous "it was truly to measure obedience, he told his participants that he was studying the
effects of punishment on learning." (Nairne 435). Milgram withheld information to get a better
understanding how far individuals would go to fulfill the request of an authority figure. Milgram
feared that if he was transparent and provided participants with all of the information, it would skew
the results. He wanted to know if people were naturally malicious or if they folded

INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of obedience is when a person view himself as an instrument for carrying out another
person's command, and therefore, no longer views himself responsible for his actions. Excessive
obedience can lead to a harmful situation that can result to the Nazi's atrocities. Stanley Milgram
wrote an article "Obedience to Authority" with a reference to Nazi Germany and how transferring
the responsibility played a role during holocaust. Milgram experiment shows us that ordinary people
will most likely to conform to an authority figure, to the extent of hurting others. Adolf Eichmann is
an example of authority figure who followed orders that cause millions of people to lose their lives.
He was one of Adolf Hitler's right hand that ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Many are capable of doing things as long as they know that they are not going to be accountable for
their actions. They assume that because an authority gives them an order to do something, they think
it is the right thing to do. This proves that influence can make people do things they have not done
before. The mere fact that millions of people died during the holocaust is an example of how far a
person could go in the name of obedience. During his experiment, 65% of the students ended up
delivering 450 volts, which was the max shock. It seems disturbing that many people are willing to
do evil things because they think that they are free from the responsibility. According to Milgram,
"The most far–reaching consequence is that the person feels responsible to the authority directing
him, but feels no responsibility for the content of the actions that the authority prescribes." This may
be how the SS soldiers felt while doing their wrong–doings to the Jews. They must have thought
that they did not have the power or voice to speak out when it is the Government that is telling them
to do such actions. Milgram's experiment pointed out that people that are only obeying commands
feel less responsible for their actions. This is where banality of evil comes take

Analysis Of Stanley Milgram 's ' Perils Of Obedience ' Essay
From the beginning, society teaches us to respect and obey all rules given to us by authoritative
figures. Through the schooling process, teachers reinforce this idea by giving students orders and
expecting them to listen without question. We 've learned that disobedience connotes with "being
bad" when this is not necessarily the case. Many adults today still carry these teaching into their
adulthood. It is no wonder why leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin easily manipulated
the minds of masses for their own personal and political agenda. Still, many questions still remain
prevalent as to how an individual reaches his or her decision on obedience in a distressing
environment. Inspired by Nazi trials, Stanley Milgram, an American psychologist, questions the
social norm in "Perils of Obedience" (1964), where he conducted a study to test how far the average
American was willing to for under the pressures of an authority figure. Milgram 's study showed
that under the orders of an authoritative figure, 64% of average Americans had the capability of
projecting voluntary harm on another person. Nonetheless, Diana Baumrind, an American
developmental psychologist, argues in "Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading
Stanley Milgram's Behavioral Study of Obedience" (1964), that the experiment conducted by
Milgram was unethical, leaving the subjects distressed and emotionally vulnerable. Baumrind states
that the subjects were inclined to follow orders due to the

Research Paper On Stanley Milgram
Stanley Milgram was born in New York in 1933. He earn his Ph.D. at Harvard University. He was a
famous psychologist at Yale University. Milgram was the first psychologist to do an experiment in
obedience. The first step to this experiment requires two participants (teacher and learner). The
learner have to be in a different room as the teacher. The learner has to be sitting down in an electric
chair. The teacher have to test the learner with word pairs and if the learner gets a wrong answer
they will get an electric shock and as it keeps going, the more wrong answers, the more high
intencity in the electric shocks. In reality the learner was not being shock with electricity, they was
acting because they wanted to know the reaction of the teacher ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They basically playing with their mind because as I mention before, it was not real about shocking
the learner. People who participate in that experiment had a really bad day because they couldn't
decide if they should keep going with the experiment or if they should quit. They kind of feel like if
they were force to do something they don't really want, but in reality they were not being force. I
also saw a movie like a year ago which is about Stanley's experiment. What I remember about the
movie was that the people who were supposed to be the teachers at the experiment that they didn't
know what to do when they stop hearing the student yells. They keep asking the experimenter that
they should need to stop, but the experimenter have to respond "you should keep going" because
that respond is part of the experiment as well. Well, experimenting with the actions of people when
they are under pressure has a lot to do with psychology because their action makes them to keep
with their responsibilities and they don't matter is it can cause the death of an innocent. For
example, I think they feel like " I decided to do this experiment, so I have no other option but to
continue with it no matter the

Summary Of The Perils Of Obedience By Stanley Milgram
Stanley Milgram, in his essay, "The Perils of Obedience," argues that ordinary humans can be
destructive instruments when they obey authority. For example, the Nazis guards were following
orders when they were committing genocidal acts. "Obedience," written by Ian Parker, leads one to
believe that people have different degrees of obedience under different situational factors. Parker
partially agrees with Milgram on human obedience and how it can cause problems. 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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He tried to hide his laughter from the experimenter, but he could not. The man was very relaxed
during his interview and said he was interested in science, so he went through the entire experiment.
He explained he did not usually behave like this and he was appalled about how obedient he was.
The man said he did not like the fact that he had no power to help the learner, so he expressed weird
emotions. On a positive note, he said he learned to deal with situations in the future, more
effectively. There has been many variations of this experiment also. For example, the teacher was
free to choose the shock level and thirty–eight of the forty subjects did not go above 150 volts.
Another example would be when the experimenter gave the instructions by telephone. Only one
third of the subjects were obedient in this version of the experiment. The subjects found it easier to
disobey when they were not face to face with the experimenter. Thirty percent of the subjects were
obedient to the end of the experiment when they had to physically push the learner's hand on the

“In 1961, Stanley Milgram, A Psychologist At Yale University,
"In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment on the
conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined the justifications for
acts of genocide given by those accused at the World War II Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their
defense often was based on "obedience," and that they were just following orders from their
superiors. The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew
straws to find out who would be the 'learner' and who would be the 'teacher'. The draw was fixed so
that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was part of the experiment, pretending to
be a real participant. Volunteers were recruited for a false ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net
...
Nervous laughter is defined as "laughter evoked from an audience 's expression of embarrassment,
alarm, discomfort, or confusion; rather than amusement." "Nervous Laughter." Wikipedia,
Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_laughter. Accessed 26 Apr.
2017. When the teacher refused to administer a shock the experimenter was to give a series of
orders to prod them to continue. There were four prods given to the "teachers." If one was not
obeyed then the experimenter, Mr. Williams, read out the next prod, and so on. The experimenter
starts with, "Please continue," "The experiment requires you to continue," and continues with, "It is
absolutely essential that you continue," and, "You have no other choice but to continue." The
"teacher 's" response determines how many times the prods were stated, but nothing else was said in
response except these four statements. Results As a result, 65% of participants, the "teachers,"
continued to the 450 volts level. All the participants continued to at least 300 volts. Milgram
conducted more than one experiment. He carried out 18 variations of this study, altering the
situation to see how this affected obedience. Conclusion In conclusion, ordinary people are more
likely to follow orders given by an authoritative person, even to extreme extents. Obedience to
authority is

The Effects Of Deceit : A Look At The Stanley Milgram...
E–Mack Brown
Mr. Sutterfield
College Composition 1
29 October, 2017
Effects of Deceit: A Look At the Stanley Milgram Experiment A recent Pew poll shows there is an
increasingly substantial amount of public disagreement about basic scientific facts, facts such as the
human though process (Scientific American). People in today's society believe that studies, for
example the Stanley Milgram Experiments, are falsified and irrelevant. In "The Perils of Obedience"
Stanley Milgram, an experienced psychologist at Yale, explains how the human mind reacts to
commands when placed under extreme stress. However, Diana Baumrind, a clinical and
developmental psychologist, disagrees with Milgram in her article "Review of Stanley Milgram 's
Experiments on ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In most cases, when the learner began to scream, the teacher would begin to refuse to continue,
which is where the instructor would come in and coerce them into continuing. At first most rejected,
but eventually obeyed and continued on a few more voltages. However, in every case, the teacher
proclaimed they would not be held responsible for the pain inflicted on the learner, even though he
was the one inflicting it. The results of the experiment was that an overwhelming amount of people
continued throughout the highest voltage, resulting in an increasing obedience to the instructor. On
the issue of how the participants were treated in Milgram's study, Baumrind believes the subjects
were mistreated and may have been left with permanent mental damage. She claims not having told
the subjects' place in the study, Milgram deceives them and therefore is to be held responsible for
their care. Milgram shows this when the teachers begin to refuse to continue the experiment, instead
of ending the experiment, he encourages them to continue. Forcing them to believe they were
inflicting severe pain on another person is unethical according to Baumrind. She also suspects the
setting has an effect on the mind when she states, "Because of the anxiety and passivity generated
by the setting, the subject is more prone to behave in an obedient, suggestible manner in the
laboratory than elsewhere (Baumrind p.421). This thought is proven by Milgram's analysis of how
the

In 1963, Stanley Milgram of Yale University conducted a behavioral study on destructive obedience.
Researchers hypothesized that obedience to authority figures is an engrained behavior that can
override an individual's ethics, sympathies, and moral conduct. The experiment was designed to
investigate what degree of obedience subjects would display when instructed by an authority figure
to inflict pain and harmful punishment (via electric shock) on another person. In this study, the
subjects were told that experimenters were looking into the effect of punishment on learning. Under
false pretense and pretext, subjects were asked by an authority figure (the experimenter) to play the
role of "teacher" and were instructed to deliver increasingly powerful shocks to "learners" when the
learners failed to answer the teacher's questions ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The independent variable was the contextual format and procedure of the experiment. That is to say:
the perception of the authority figure and their legitimacy (study conducted at prestigious university
with impassively mannered experimenter present in room with subject), the subject's acceptance of
the situation as authentic which was supported by a realistic looking shock machine (that subjects
were given a sample shock from) and confederate learner, and the experimenter's instructions and
regimented prodding of teachers to continue. The dependent variable was the amount of obedience
and compliance displayed by subjects. This value was determined by the maximum shock that
subjects were willing to inflict on learners before refusing to continue. Despite initial audibly
distressed protests of the learner and descriptions on the shock machine that indicated dangerous
levels of severe shocks would be delivered, 26 of the

Review Of Stanley Milgram 's '
A standout amongst the most renowned investigations of compliance in brain research was done by
Stanley Milgram (Myers 499). Stanley Milgram was a therapist at Yale University, directed an
analysis concentrating on the contention between acquiescence to power and individual still, small
voice. He analyzed avocations for demonstrations of genocide offered by those blamed at the World
War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials (Myers 499). Their resistance regularly depended on
"submission" – that they were simply taking after requests from their bosses. The trial testing started
in July 1961, shortly a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann located in Jerusalem (McLeod).
Milgram conceived the analysis to answer the inquiry "Would it be able to be that Eichmann and his
million assistants in the Holocaust were simply taking after requests? Would we be able to call
every one of them accessories?" (McLeod).
Milgram needed to examine whether Germans were especially faithful to power figures as this was
a typical clarification for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram chose members for his test by
daily paper publicizing for male members to participate in an investigation of learning at Yale
University (Myers 500). The strategy was that the member was matched with someone else and they
attracted parcels to discover who might be the "learner" and who might be the 'educator '. The draw
was altered so that the member was dependably the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram 's

Stanley Milgram was a psychology professor at Yale University, a prestigious school in Connecticut.
He was interested in why so many German people in the 1930s and 1940s had followed instructions
which involved causing pain or killing innocent human beings. His experiment on obedience to
authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments that measured the willingness of
study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with
their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.
The experiments began in July 1961, in the basement of Linsly–Chittenden Hall at Yale University,
[3] three months after ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Do as you're told
Many war–criminals claimed they were merely following orders and could not be held responsible
for their actions, in the trials following the World War 2. Were the Germans in fact evil and cold–
hearted, or is this a group phenomenon which could happen to anyone, given the right conditions
Preparation of the Stanley Milgram Experiment The psychologist Stanley Milgram created an
electric 'shock generator' with 30 switches. The switch was marked clearly in 15 volt increments,
ranging from 15 to 450 volts. He also placed labels indicating the shock level, such as 'Moderate'
(75–120 Volts) and 'Strong' (135–180 Volts). The switches 375–420 Volts were marked 'Danger:
Severe Shock' and the two highest levels 435–450, was marked 'XXX'. The 'shock generator' was in
fact phony and would only produce sound when the switches were pressed. 40 subjects (males) were
recruited via mail and a newspaper ad. They thought they were going to participate in an experiment
about 'memory and learning'. In the test, each subject was informed clearly that their payment was
for showing up, and they could keep the payment "no matter what happens after they

Stanley Milgram Experiment: Critical Thinking And Moral...
The Stanley Milgram experiment was a great test on how people react to authority. The experiment
tested peoples willingness to follow orders. Basically the test consisted of the Teacher, the Learner,
and the Experimenter. The Teacher was the subject of the test and he administered shocks to the
Learner for incorrect answer. The shocks increased in increments of 15 to a high of 450 volts. More
than 50 percent of their test population administered the highest possible shock. These shocking
results make you questions why is there such an absence of critical thinking and moral
responsibility. After watching the original 1962 Stanley Milgram experiment it is interesting to see
how people ended up getting to the highest possible shock. I find that ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The test subjects failed to think critically and even act morally in the face of authority. The teachers
often referred to the experimenter to continue when they knew the learner was in pain. Even after
the learner had gone silent the test subjects continued. The test subject didn't know if they were alive
in the room or not and the majority continued regardlessly. One specific dilemma I have was faced
with was resolving a grade dispute amongst a teacher and student. The teacher who was an adjunct
filling in for the regular teacher had changed the syllabus contract. Because the syllabus contract
was changed a discrepancy between the two started to grow. The problem grew to such extent that
the teacher failed him over personal issues rather than academic reasons. It took great moral
reasoning and review of my peers to come to a conclusion. This experiment to me really shows just
how many people will obey to authority even when it means going against your morals. The
Milgram case helped me to criticize my surroundings more so than rather overlook what is going
on. We are taught to obey authority at a young age and all throughout our adolescence. It is hard to
say that some of these pre notions aren't conditioned into our every day

Stanley Milgram
Individual Programmatic Assessment: Exploring a Classic Study in Social Psychology Daryl
Bonelli Psych/620 January 25th, 2016 Colleen Story Individual Programmatic Assessment:
Exploring a Classic Study in Social Psychology Introduction Norman Chomsky once wrote "I think
it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in
every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are
illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom." There is a true
feeling of what authority can do if placed in situations that require someone to follow instructions.
What happens to someone when they follow the orders of another ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Were there any unexpected findings? What did the authors conclude? What did the results mean,
and what are their implications? Results of the study are looked at by the number of participants and
students when they stopped or continued to the end of the experiment. Participants in the study
gauged on how far they would go in delivering shock the students. The question posed to a group of
student from Yale where the study was conducted and participated in the experiment. The result was
3 out of 100 provided answers to giving the maximum voltage allowed by the administrator. 65% of
the participants in the study which is shocking to the question proposed before the experiment
proceeded with pressing the lever for maximum voltage (Cherry, 2008). The subjects in the study
became highly agitated, angry, distraught, and extremely upset with the examiners (teachers); the
participant students continued all the way until the end of the study. Unexpectedly the findings
produce quite a shock itself because of the high level of participants who would follow orders by
continuing the shock someone as they know and understand that the severity of voltage would go
from 30 volts and in 15–volt increments, and it continues all the way to 450 volts. The levels were
labeled, slight, moderate, and danger "severe shock." Moreover, the last two labels were simply
documented as XXX. As found by the study physical presence of the person in

Perils Of Obedience Stanley Milgram Analysis
Summary and Analysis of "Perils of Obedience" by Stanley Milgram
Summary
The "Perils of Obedience" by Stanley Milgram details about the classic studies relating to
obedience. The main study in focus is the Milgram's Obedience study, conducted in the 1963 by the
Yale University scientist Stanley Milgram. The experiment was designed by Milgram in such a way
that participants are forced to obey the instructions of authority figure, even if they are immoral and
also when such instructions cause pain/harm to another person. The participants selected for the
experiment are ordinary people (Milgram, 630). The participants were willing to administer electric
shocks to remaining people when ordered by authority figure. The Milgram experiment does not
address the ethical concerns of testing and Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University, upon modifying
the Milgram's setup found that situational factors result increased obedience in participants
(Milgram, 631). The studies conducted by Burger and Milgram showed under a specific set of
circumstances, the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
People are ready to give electric shocks to others when given orders by authority figures and only
few of them opposed such shocks. The participants in the experiments conducted by Milgram and
Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University (follow–on study) are basically obedient to the researcher
due the situational factors. The research showed that the commands given by authority figure
overrides conscience of people and only few people like Plato, who have rational thinking could
counter such authority influence. The thesis of the article is that "People with authority can
transform ordinary people to agents of terror and the high level willingness of the participants to
take to any step as suggested by the authority basing on the command of the authority assumes

Stanley Milgram The Perils Of Obedience Summary
The Excerpt "The Peril of Obedience by Stanley Milgram discusses an experiment testing on
individuals through cruel and unmoral experiments. After reading Milgram's text about the
experiments conducted to see if individuals would compile with authority even if the command was
unmoral. Stanley Milgram, an excerpt From "The Perils of obedience", states that Milgram is
making the following statement concerning the condition of the experiment: "This condition of the
experiment undermines another commonly offered explanation of the subjects' behavior– that those
who shocked the victim at the most severe levels came only from sadistic fringe of society"
(Milgram 699). By stating this Milgram explains that even if it means harming other human beings
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It was surprising how easily someone could just inflict pain on another human being without so
much as a second thought. Milgram even states "Subjects in the experiment frequently even said, "If
it were up to me, I would not have administered shocks to the learner" (Milgram 702). By stating
this I know the participants did have some remorse they wouldn't want to shock the learner but they
do because of the fact they were told to by an authority figure. In life we are always told to listen
and respect our elders and teachers and we see them as our authority figure so if they were to give
us a command we would compile. What if the command we were given was something we knew
was wrong but since it was from someone who has authority it must make it ok. That's we think and
I know working in the nursing field I see it more than I should because of nurses telling me to do
things I'm not allowed to do under my certifications. I find it hard to tell them no, just like the
participants of this experiment they knew that if they listened the individual would get hurt but that
didn't matter they were doing what they were told to do. The experiments were wrong morally and
were extremely cruel and because they were so unnecessary innocent individuals were put in pain
for no

Stanley Milgram Experiment Summary
What did Stanley Milgram seek to test in his experiments at Yale University? Milgram was
interested in researching to see how far people would go to obey and instruction if it meant harming
another person even if they disagreed with it. The main point was to see if for example
normal/regular people were capable of the monstrosities that happened in WWII by the Germans.
The learner was a person that was supposed to learn a specific behavior and if he got the answer
wrong then the teacher was supposed to shock the individual by being instructed by the
experimenter. If the teacher would refuse then the experimenter would prod them with four
statements to continue. What were the results? The results showed that two–thirds of the participants
continued on as ordered to the 450volts and the other ones shocked the learner to 300 volts.
Milgram tested 636 people in 18 different variations of the experiment. He changed location
conditions, the number of teachers, whether or not the teacher (participant) was touched, and
changed the clothing of the experimenter (put on a lab coat). Ordinary people can carry out orders or
even cause extreme harm to another individual if given by a person of authority. Being obedient is
ingrained into us from an early age. Do you think that the findings would be similar today? ... Show
You are given an order by someone that out ranks you and because of their position of authority you
will carry out the order. This falls in line with my brother and sisters in arms that don't agree with
the war and they have to go down range and kill another human being because of an order. It is a
part of our "Oath of Enlistment" " I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the
orders of the officers appointed over me". This is why the military is not for everyone, we have a
discharge statement for it "member cannot conform to

Milgram Experiment Stanley Milgram created a series of psychological experiments that studied the
extent of a human beings willingness to obey an authority figure who informed them to commits
acts not in correspondence with their own personal beliefs. Milgram started the experiments because
he was intrigued by the German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who many believed that he and
his troops were just following orders. The experiments have been tried with various societies and
countries. The experiment showed the extreme outcomes that obedience plays with an individual in
certain circumstances. The experiment consisted of three individuals. The individuals filled the roles
of the authoritative role, the Teacher, and the Learner.

Summary Of The Perils Of Obedience By Stanley Milgram
The experiments conducted by Stanley Milgram have become one of the most controversial and
most influential experiments in the world of psychology. In 1963 the Milgram experiments took
place at Yale University, and tested subjects on obedience to authority. While reading Stanly
Milgram's "The Perils of Obedience" the topic of authority to obedience is discussed by Milgram
stating: "Obedience is one of the most basic an element in the structure of social life as one can
point to" (691). Submission to authority is not a new concept, but with the Milgram experiments it
has been given a new insight to Obedience to authority. Milgram was inspired to conduct the
experiments because of the events before and during World War II, and the Nazi's ability to maintain
control of the Jewish people. While the experiments performed were cruel and insensitive, I agree
with the conclusions Milgram gained from the experiments because people are taught to obey
authority from childhood, and Ordinary people can commit immoral acts and, defiance can result in
punishment. In the experiment there would be a teacher and a learner even though the real focus
would be on the teacher, and this would help Milgram test his theory. Milgram designed the
experiment and remained deceitful on the actual events that would be taking place. Milgram states
"The teacher is a genuinely naïve subject who has come to the laboratory for the experiment"
(693).The teacher believed they would administer shocks to the

The Perils of Obedience, by Stanley Milgram
If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent
human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a
psychologist at Yale University tested in the 1960's. Most people would answer "no," to imposing
pain on innocent human beings but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and
Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram's "The Perils of
Obedience," where he displays an eye–opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people
under authority figures. He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm
innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Batta obeys the orders of the experimenter and pays no attention to the cries and complains of the
learner. Batta administers all the way up to the 450 volt shock and feels glad to have helped with the
experiment. Batta did not feel as though he was responsible for the life of the learner but it was his
duty to finish the task at hand. This was the brutal and astonishing experiment that Milgram chose to
show that some people are very obedient to anything the authority figures order. The heading of this
particular section is intriguing and pulls the reader in to find out what happen in this case. He slowly
builds up to the twist of the results to shock the audience. The organization of the article made the
results of the experiment more unexpected, surprising and effective Milgram did a great job within
his organization and ability to portray his studies to his audience. Secondly, the use of direct quotes
supports Milgram's studies. The quotes let the audience try to understand what the participants
actually felt like and what they went through during the experiment. The direct quotes also help the
organization of the article and make it clear and engaging. Fred Prozi says in the experiment, "I can't
stand it I'm not going to kill that man in there. You hear him hollering?" The experimenter then
states, "As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, but..." "But he's hollering. He can't stand

Review Of Stanley Milgram 's ' Obedience ' Essay
Diana Baumrind and Ian Parker have each authored a review of Stanley Milgram's famous
obedience experiments. In Milgram's experiments, he observed the extent of subjects ' obedience to
authority when an experimenter commanded them to deliver possibly harmful electric shocks to
another person. According to Milgram, an alarming amount of subjects willingly proceeded to the
highest voltage shock in the experiment. In Baumrind 's "Review of Stanley Milgram 's Experiments
on Obedience," she attempts to disprove and refute Milgram 's experiments by criticizing his
experimental set–up, his lack of safety precautions, his ethically questionable study, and his
comparison between his experiments and Nazi Germany. In Parker's "Obedience," he seeks to show
Milgram 's strengths and weaknesses in order to review his experiments. Parker begins his critique
by analyzing Milgram 's ethics and questionable scientific procedure. He then evaluates Milgram 's
comparison between his experiment and the Holocaust, summarizes Milgram 's life and the effect it
had on his experiments, and introduces the effect of situational factors on obedience. While Parker
effectively critiques Milgram's experiments by discussing Milgram's ethical flaws and the flaws in
his procedure, Baumrind ineffectively and subjectively analyzes these topics; however, both authors
effectively critique Milgram's comparison between his experiments and the Holocaust.
Baumrind and Parker certainly agree that Milgram's experiments

Analysis Of Stanley Milgram 's ' The Milgram Obedience '
One of the most well–known experimentations in submission in psychology the famous Milgram
obedience study conducted by Stanley Milgram, social psychologist who worked at Yale University
during the 1960s, and the ethical guidelines that should have been integrated with his research.
Stanley Milgram's aim was to study whether the German population were predominantly compliant
to imposing figures which was a collective thought for the Nazi massacres that happened during the
course of World War II. Milgram's study dishonored the regulations and procedures for moral
human experiments brought on by the British Psychological Society.
The most important questions that Stanley Milgram attempted to answer was could he get
individuals to electrocute and cause serious harm to other human beings and if so then could events
like the Holocaust occur again. He wanted to see if every normal people who were good and caring
have the ability to act callous and inhumanely without any regard toward human safety. His goal
was to understand obedience and authority and under what conditions would someone obey
authority and carry out order and commands that demanded cruel and unusual punishment. The
experiment consisted of a number of participants that were instructed to teach an individual deemed
a "learner" pairs of words and administer an electric shock if they gave an incorrect response. With
each incorrect response, the electric shock was amplified, despite the fact the the participant had

Stanley Milgram Assignment
Milgram Assignment
I. In 1962, Stanley Milgram, a Social Relations professor at Yale University conducted an
experiment on the internal struggle between a person's innate obedience to authority and their
standards of morality. Milgram was intrigued by former Nazi officers justifying their horrific actions
with the excuse that they were merely following orders. Milgram's experiment, heavily reliant on
unknowing participants, recruited 40 male individuals aged 20–50 years old––with a preference for
individuals who were not educated––with a newspaper ad that promised four dollars as payment for
their contribution to memory research. Subjects were led into the test area in pairs, accompanied by
an experimenter, and paid immediately. The ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The last two switches on the board were simply characterized as XXX. Before the experiment
begins, the teacher is subjected to a test shock of 45 volts to understand to an extent what the learner
will be enduring. The experimenter assures both participants that though the shocks may be
extremely painful, they are not dangerous. The teacher is instructed by the experimenter to begin at
15 volts and increase the intensity of the shocks after every incorrect answer. The actor was trained
to exhibit various indicators of distress based on the voltage level at which they were being
"shocked". These distress signals included groaning, screaming, refusal to continue, indication of a
heart problem, and lastly silence. Milgram was able to watch the experiment out–of–sight from
another room. Though he had few expectations in terms of what to expect from the teachers, he
wasn't sure that anyone would administer 450 volts. What Milgram found was that the majority
(approximately 65% of the subjects) went as far as to administer the maximum 450 volts. Even after
expressing perceptible anxiety and a reluctance to continue, none of the subjects terminated prior to
administering the 300–volt shocks. When individuals began to exhibit hesitation, the experimenter
was to insist that the teacher continue, as it was of the utmost importance that they reach the end of
the experiment. Out of the 40 individuals who took part, 26 of them completed

Analysis Of Stanley Milgram 's ' The Perils Of Obedience '
Essay #4 – Obedience and Defiance
Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment, which later wrote
about it in "The Perils of Obedience" in 1963 to research how people obey authoritative figures and
what extent a person would go inflicting pain onto an innocent person. The study involved a teacher
(subject), learner (actor), and an experimenter (authoritative figure). The teacher was placed in front
of a control panel labeled with electrical shocks ranging from 15 to 450 volts and instructed to
shock the learner incrementally if they gave a wrong answer when asked questions with word
associations. Switches corresponded with the voltage ranging from "Slight Shock" to "Danger:
Severe Shock" followed by ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The study was observing how far a person would go inflicting pain onto another person. According
to Milgram's study, the subjects would rather please the experimenter and show him or her they can
do the job rather than take on the responsibility that they are harming another human being. "The
essence of obedience" as Milgram says is when the person follows orders for another person and is
not held responsible for his or her own actions. It is much easier to do a task even if it means
harming someone as in the experiment if the subject is not held liable for anyone. "The
experimenter did not threaten the subjects with punishment–such as loss of income, community
ostracism, or jail–for failure to obey" (Milgram 181). The subject did not really have a choice in the
experiment, they were compliant, and when they expressed signs of tension or anxiety or even
voiced their concerns, they were told to "continue" and that "the experiment must go on." Obedience
to authority is generally, what most people, as proven in Milgram's experiment, tend to follow.
Nevertheless, is obeying authority always the "right" thing to do? A great example is while at work,
an employer who gives demands or orders to his or her employee and since it is their job to follow
directions from their

Why Is Stanley Milgram Experiment Unethical
Multiple arguments are made about Stanley Milgram's Obedience Experiments. Diana Baumrind,
author of "Review of Stanley Milgram's Experiments on Obedience" and a former psychologist at
the University of California in Berkeley, strongly believes that Milgram's experiments should not
have taken place. Baumrind focuses on the aftermath of the experiment and how even when subjects
were told that the screams they heard were merely recordings, participants experienced lasting
effects (Baumrind 90). Ian Parker, author of "Obedience" and a writer for the New Yorker, also
believes the trauma experienced by participants was unethical; some participants suffered from heart
attacks after the experiment, and others were in therapy several years later when Milgram conducted
a survey (Parker 98). ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Both authors explain that if the setting had differed from the laboratory, the subjects would have
acted differently; they would not have felt obliged to obey the expert conducting the experiments.
People often participate in things because of where they are, and not who they are (Parker 103).
Conversely, both authors also refute that Milgram's experiments related to Hitler's Germany. The
Nazis took part in horrific acts because they believed Hitler was right; they were not just obeying
orders (Baumrind 93). Based on the facts of the experiments, it is easy to see why Baumrind and
Parker do not necessarily agree with what Milgram conducted. Both articles are effective in
portraying the downfalls of Milgram's experiments and provide few

Essay on Stanley Milgram
This quote, by Stanley Milgram (1974, p. 205), exemplifies the debate that exists around the topic of
obedience. Obedient behaviours have been studied in Milgram's famous obedience experiments, and
evidence of atrocities being carried out as a result of obedience can be seen in situations such as the
holocaust in World War Two (Mastroianni, 2000) and more recent events such as (My Lai). This
essay will explain both sides of the debate, arguing for situation and individual factors that influence
people to behave in particular ways. Therefore, an interactional approach is argued here, that the
situation and individual influences cannot be disentangled. A brief explanation of Milgram's
baseline study (1963) will be introduced first, before ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Proximity between the participant and the learner was changed, with it ranging from the learner not
being heard or seen at all (yielding 100% obedience), to the participant holding down the learners
hand and arm onto a metal plate, which they believed was shocking the learner (decreasing
obedience to 30%). Milgram himself reported significant differences between these proximity
conditions, but when Blass (1991) evaluated Milgram's (1963) work, he reports the analyses and
shows that regardless of whether a participant is close to the learner physically and emotionally,
they still acted in a similar way. The fact that Milgram did not report these analyses also shows how
there might have been some selective reporting in what he wanted the public to see. Blass' (1991)
analyses display how the situation was not necessarily that powerful, and that the participants acted
in similar ways regardless of the different types of contexts they were put in. Furthermore, there was
also another version of the study (state exactly which experiment this was) in which the participants
could decide for themselves how much voltage to shock the learner to. It comes as a relief that they
shocked significantly lower than the baseline conditions, showing that when the situation allows
freedom, the individual can make a decision. However, I would argue that even though they had the
freedom to administer the shock level of their choice, they still actually administered a

Stanley Milgram 's Influence On The Human Mind
Throughout the last century there have been many highly influential psychologists across the globe.
Through extensive experimentation and research, these psychologists have revealed many surprising
truths about human nature and the thought process behind our actions. Although these experiments
have given us a great deal of insight into the human mind, many of them have been surrounded by a
lot of controversy. An American man named Stanley Milgram conducted one of such experiments.
Stanley Milgram was born in New York City on August 15th, 1933 to a family of Jewish
immigrants. He attended James Monroe High School, with another famous future psychologist,
Philip Zimbardo. Reportedly, Milgram was a determined kid and he managed to graduate ... Show
Milgram was working as a professor at Yale University, when he began conducting a series of
experiments that focused on the conflict between personal conscience and obeying authority
(Cherry, 2004). At the time, many people were accused of affiliating with Nazis during World War
II. A popular justification given by those on trial was that they were only following orders. The
study began just one year after Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. Milgram's experiment was
devised 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?" (McLeod, 2007). For
the experiment, Milgram required a number of volunteer test subjects and one very good actor.
Forty average male participants, between age 20 and 50, were recruited from the New Haven area.
Each was paid $4.50 for just showing up. At the beginning of the experiment, they were each
introduced to another participant, who was actually an actor hired by Milgram. The volunteers were
told that they were taking part in scientific research to improve memory. They drew straws to
determine their roles – leaner or teacher –however, unbeknown to the volunteers, this was fixed and
the actor always ended up the learner. There was also the "experimenter" dressed in a grey lab coat,
played by another hired actor. The teacher and the learner were then separated by a screen,

The Background on the Stanley Milgram Theory Essay
The social psychology theory that I will be analyzing is based on the Stanley Milgram experiment
done in 1965 following the start of the Nazi war. He was curios on all the violence taking place
during this time. As a Jew himself, he wanted to find out whether or not the Adolf Eichmann
accomplice had the same intent and hate towards the Jewish people during the holocaust. Based on
Solomon Asch's past experiments on conformity, Milgram's experiment was done to determine
whether or not the power of the situation could cause average people to conform to obedience. The
results of Milgram's experiment were astounding. The research of Milgram's experiment had such a
major impact on social psychology that we still use his findings to analyze ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It is not until then that some of the participants began to question what they were doing. The
experimenter would simply tell the participants to "continue." A few of them requested to stop, but
still continued to issue the shocks after being prompted that they will not be held responsible. The
results showed that 65% of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum voltage of 450
volts. The research also showed that none of the subjects stopped before reaching 300 volts.
Different factors contributed to the amount of people who issued the maximum voltage. Things like
the location dropped the percentage who issued the 300 volts. For instance, when they decided to
conduct the experiment in an office building rather than in on campus at Yale, the percentage of
those who issued the maximum voltage dropped almost 20%.
These findings were stunning to those involved in the experiment. Nobody predicted these results
prior to the research being done. In fact Milgram believed he most people wouldn't go past 150
volts. He predicted that only 4% of participants would go past 150 volts of punishment. (Milgram,
1974) The results later led to Milgram's theory of obedience. It is ironic that virtues of loyalty,
discipline, and self–sacrifice that we value so highly in the individual are the very properties that
create destructive organizational engines of war and bind men to malevolent systems of authority.
(Milgram, 1974)
Impact of Milgram's Theory
Some

Dr. Stanley Milgram Experiment Actions
Another instance where V 's actions harm innocent people without caring was when he ordered
innocent people to wear Guy Fawkes masks and march to the parliament to watch the explosion.
These citizens could have been killed by the military officers who waited for orders to strike though
no orders were given. If V was a revolutionary, he could have found the way of making a statement
without risking the lives of the innocent citizens. His evil actions present him as a rebel against the
government and his fellow citizens. He also states that ' 'violence could be used for good. ' ' V 's
actions of not caring about the others were the same as compared to Stanley Milgram experiment
actions. The subjects in this experiment were suffering, but the experimenter did nothing to relieve
the students the pain. Instead, he urged the teachers to continue to torture the students knowing very
well they were suffering from the high voltage. The teachers played the sadist role as they agreed as
they completely obeyed the experimenter 's instructions. V 's evil actions also present him as a sadist
by enjoying hurting people and killing the ones who were in charge of the experiments.
Also, V enjoyed taunting Evey, when he caused her emotional and physical pain and made her
believe that she was going to die, but he wanted her to be stronger so that he could use her to
accomplish his parliament attacking mission. Evey's situation was the same as compared to that of
Milgram experiments on the

The Sense Of Protection By Stanley Milgram Mentions
Many individuals in today's society are being influenced by outside attractions. Many are blindly
manipulated to an authority due to the sense of protection. The comfort of feeling protected gives
one the feeling of being part of the group and the feel of security. Authority; a model or leader who
creates rules to make individuals follow. People obey to authorities because of the fear of failing and
loneliness. It is a human nature to be afraid to be left out and experience solitary. In addition,
individuals are not willing to disobey because of the fear of punishment from an authority. This
forceful thought makes one to follow with no self– conscience, soon they will lose confidence. As
Stanley Milgram mentions, "Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one
can point to," (144). By shown in contempt society, people are prone to obey to a certain authority
due to the fear of punishment and being in solitary. This type of obedience eventually will lead one
to lose confidence, go against their own morals, and become irrational, which will be deleterious to
future society. People nowadays are prone to obedience because they are afraid to be isolated from
the community. Community is known as a group of people who truly have no fear in relying on each
other. People in a community usually share common goals and have a sense of belonging within the
group. In order to overcome the fear of being in solitary, one tends to obey to the authority in the

Purpose/Objectives of Study A Yale University psychologist named Stanley Milgram started a
research experiment that investigated the conflict between obedience to authority and personal
conscience (McLeod, 2007). This study was conducted in response to the Nuremburg Trials in
Germany, as German officials had claimed they were just following orders that were given to them
by their superiors. Milgram formulated the experiment so that it could 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). However, the objectives of this experiment were
not achieved. The objectives were not achieved because the act of shocking a person cannot be
compared to the genocide the Germans committed during WWII. Also, Milgram wanted to study
whether the Germans were more obedient to authority figures, but he ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Proposals for research needing to be submitted and reviewed by institutional review boards before
being conducted did not come into existence until the 1970s and 1980s, after the Milgram
experiment had concluded. He does however follow the rules of informed consent, debriefing, and
confidentiality. All participants filled out a form before participating and participants were debriefed
after the experiment because they were able to meet the "learner" and confirm they had not harmed
him during the experiment. Milgram also did survey his participants a year after to see if his
experiment left any lasting effects. Lastly, before Milgram made his videos of his experiment
available for public viewing, he contacted each participant to receive their approval of being in the
video. Those who declined to allowing to be seen in the public release were blanked out of his
videos, thus keeping their

Stanley Milgram Impact
Milgram has an enduring impact. His work has influenced society, though his work was incomplete.
In "What Makes a Person a Perpetrator? The Intellectual, Moral, and Methodological Arguments for
Revisiting Milgram's Research on the Influence of Authority" by S. Gibson, he discusses other
factors overlooked in Milgram's experiments and demonstrates certain points through the Adolf
Eichmann.
While Eichmann was on trial for his crimes in WWII, at Yale, Milgram was leading studies. He
owed a lot of his inspiration to Hannan Arendt and her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, where she
detailed the trial. In it, she coined the phrase "the banality of evil" to describe how regular people
commit atrocities for banal reasons, like 'I was just doing what I ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The 'everyman' portrayals of the actors, the scripts, the drama of it all. There was also a conflict of
interests created, because he was the maker of the documentary and the scientific investigator at the
center of the experiments. It has been argued that the success of the experiment is because of how
Milgram handled the stagecraft, and how that in itself popularized his theories on obedience. The
documentary may be compelling at face value, but the scripted–nature of the film, and the lack of
scientific process and experiment used was not acceptable. The director himself was biased from the
beginning to one side of the 'obedience to authority' argument and it showed. And with the results of
the 'Bring A Friend' condition not adding up to his original findings, more scrutiny was added to
Obedience and it fell out of

Almost five decades later, Stanley Milgrams famous study of obedience to authority is by far one of
the most known and talked about psychological experiments of the twentieth century. Milgram's
ground–breaking research showed participants a side of them that not only shocked them but also
brought the world of psychology to a standstill. Milgram's renowned study where he asked several
participants to administer voltage shocks to 'learners' behind a screen was one of the most famous
research studies done on obedience. The findings of Milgram's study showed that authority can be a
dangerous trait. This was also shown in real life situations such as the devastating time periods of
the Holocaust and Abu Ghraib where humans administered shocking ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Conversely, another explanation could be the participants were simply obeying to the legitimate
authority. This argument goes on to explain the idea; we blindly obey authority figures as we respect
their position and power in society. The findings of Milgram (1974) study goes hand in hand with
the findings of Zimbardo's prison experiment (1971). Both these experiments show how humans,
change their individuality with the influence of authority. Legitimate authority is seen clearly in
Milgrams (1974) study, the presence of the authority figure has a high impact on the obedience rate.
Milgrams study proved it is easier to resist orders from an authority figure if they are not close by.
In the study when the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another
room, obedience decreased to 20.5%. As opposed to the 65% which was the obedience rate in the
original experiment. Other studies that show legitimate authority plays a vital role when talking
about obedience are, Bickman (1974) and Bushman (1988). Both studies show how members of the
public are more likely to obey to a request from someone in uniform, as opposed to someone
without again linking in with legitimate authority. Although Milgrams study was unethical it was a
perfect opportunity for further research to take place into the subject of obedience

Stanley Milgram was a psychologist at Yale University who was interested in the levels of
obedience people shown to an authority figure. Obedience is a type of social influence whereby
somebody acts in response to a direct order from another person, it is defined as ''compliance with
commands given by an authority figure''. (LLC, 2016). Milgram studied obedience in 1963 by
carrying out a laboratory experiment, Milgram wanted to test the idea that ''German's are different''
as the Germans obeyed Hitler's orders during the holocaust. (Slapes, 2006). Milgram's laboratory
experiment was at Yale University and was advertised as a study of memory but was actually an
obedience experiment to investigate the circumstances under which a person would ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
They also weren't aware of the 'electric shocks' being fake. The participants were free to leave at any
time but wasn't aware of this as when they questioned anything the prods used by the 'experimenter'
suggested that they couldn't. The study was unethical as participants were put in situations which
could have caused psychological harm and they presented certain behaviours such as extreme
nervousness, tension, sweating, trembling and laughter which shows signs of distress an even three
of the participants even had seizures. Milgram couldn't tell the participants that the experiment was
fixed as it wouldn't have shown real levels of obedience. After the study, there was a debrief for the
participants where they were introduced to Mr Wallace and told that he wasn't actually electrocuted
so the participants could see that he was okay and no harm was brought to him, even though
psychological harm may have been brought to the participants. After the study, psychological
support was offered for up to a

Obedience, By Stanley Milgram
Obedience is practiced everyday throughout everyone 's life. It has been engraved in everyone
growing up. Students are taught at an early age to obey the higher authority's commands in school,
at home, and in public whether it is the teacher, principal, police officer, and even other parents.
Additionally, parents too have to practice obedience. They must be follow orders from their bosses,
and they must obey the laws. As a result, obedience becomes second nature, which exposes
everyone to problems. The problems are unknown to everyone because being obedience appears to
be the correct thing to do, so one obeys without thinking or gives in to the authority figure.
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

Stanley Milgram Set of Reading on Obedience
Why so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram made an
experiment to find the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded that people obey either out of
fear or out of a desire to cooperate with the authority, even when acting against their own better
judgment and desires. Milgram's experiment illustrates that people's reluctance to confront those
who abuse power. The point of the experiment was to see how far a person will proceed in a
concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting
victim, at what point will the subject refuse to obey the experimenter. One main question of the
experiment was that how far the participant will comply with the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the experiments, many participants felt bad after they obeyed the authority's orders. This bad
emotion is unhelpful to increase the productivity. One assumption of classical theory is that people
and organizations act in accordance with rational economic principles. According to the experiment,
participants felt bad during the experiment, but after they knew the truth, most of them felt glade to
join in the stud, and no one was going through for the money. It is truth that the experiment was
effective to receive data when following the classical theory. Frederick Taylor's opinion, which is
monitoring worker performance, and providing instructions and supervision, can ensure employees
are using the most efficient ways of working. In the experiment, investigator, who performed as
authority required participants obeying the orders, help the test being continual. However, it was
cruel to make participants felt so badly. 4. I agree with Milgram's opinions. It is true that people
obey the orders even they dislike to do. One of my friends works in a company as a human resource
manager. She is the person who does not want to hurt others, but her job requires her to fire people,
which she dislikes. She says that she feels upset usually; especially leaders ask her to fire
employees. She is looking the psychologist now, which is terrible. I am confused why she changes
to another job. The interesting thing is she said she does not consider about the salary, but it is the
job

Stanley Milgram ( 1963 ) Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from April Ford

More from April Ford (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Stanley Milgram ( 1963 ) Essay