How far would they go, in order to obey, if by doing so they would hurt another individual? Those are the questions that stimulated my interest in the studies conducted by Stanley Milgram. In the first section of this essay, I will discuss how the experiment was carried out by Milgram, including results and findings, while in the second section, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of his methodology and ethical issues regarding the approach. Methods Milgram 's intent was to study the behaviour of individuals subject to a certain authority. In this instance, the experimenter impersonated the authority figure.
This provided us with more opportunities, but most importantly the opportunity to change our study so it would become an investigation of the topic. Thereby the social reality was not necessarily fixed, and we could investigate the topic and the conflicts of interest differently. Using interpretivism we were able to understand the human behavior instead of just making an explanation of it. By not having settled the reality behind the conflict of interest, we were also able to investigate the existence of human behavior and to what extent. When changing our epistemological approach, it also enabled us to change our research strategy and approach to the research, as well as the types of data used in our project
There are many ways to find out how individuals would react in certain situations, for example, by putting individuals in a simulation. Causing stress and discomfort to individuals in order to gain knowledge is at times necessary. For example, Stanley Milgram’s experiments which focus on obedience to authority and the extent a person is willing to ignore their own ethical beliefs and cause pain to another individual, just because he is ordered to do so. Stanley Milgram writes about his experiments and results in his article “The Perils of Obedience”. In his experiments Stanley Milgram causes subjects who have volunteered to be a part of them some stress and discomfort in order to receive relevant results.
It is empirical that ‘Knowledge’ varies from knower to knower. This is possible as there are numerous ways of attaining knowledge (ways of knowing). Furthermore, knowers may adopt ways of knowing differently, as some could be more emotional whereas some could be more religious. Since it is possible that the ways of knowing do not hold consistent
Although one’s behavior can be the same as others, especially if they are in the same setting, however those who are in two completely different contexts will experience different reactions, just dependent on exactly where they are. Furthermore, this theory demonstrates that once we have been in a specific setting long enough, then that’s when our behaviors will become consistent over time. On the other hand, individuals might experience particular actions because they arrive at a specific setting, with an already preconceived idea of what to expect causing them to alter their behaviors based on their thoughts about the background. Another reason might be that we adjust our responses because we are unsure of how others might view or accept us being in their environments. Either way, individuals might not be aware of it, but once our surroundings change, then our behaviors is changed as
In the biological unit, we analyzed the functions of the brain, hormones and neurotransmitters and human behavior which are just a few of the examples that concluded in a consensus providing individuals with robust knowledge of the course. In the sociocultural level of analysis, we discussed topics such as stereotypes, culture, social identity, conformity, and compliance. Many research studies have been performed regarding these topics resulting in a consensus and providing individuals with accurate knowledge of the subject matter. A topic that is widely debated in the biological unit and is contradicted by many psychologists' experiments that we evaluated is the theory of whether or not intelligence is inherited or developed over time. In the sociocultural unit, we examined the social cognitive learning theory which states that behavior from members of a group, is based on the observed consequences of that behavior; this theory was developed by Albert Bandura and is proven to be a valid theory resulting in consensus and
Describe in detail the Implict Association Test. What does this test? Who are the researchers? The Implict Associations Test is a test that takes someone 's beliefs and attitude into account in order to find out their true thoughts on specific topics (e.g. Gender, skintone, sexuality and so on), whether the person is aware of these thoughts or not.
This model, as highlighted by the authors, can be used to further our understanding of bereavement in a variety of contexts (Stroebe & Schut, 1999). One of the contexts in which this model was explored was for understanding more complicated variants of bereavement, which are more chronic. According to a study by Prigerson and colleagues (1997), more complicated forms of bereavement can be seen as a syndrome of loss orientation. Cases in which alternation between the two orientations do not occur was theorised by these researchers to be associated with poor adjustment among the bereaved. Apart from that, this model can also be used to explain gender differences in the bereavement process, as evidence has exhibited that bereaved mothers appear to show more loss orientation than bereaved fathers (Dijkstra, van den Bout, Stroebe, Schut, & Stroebe,
With this in mind, machines should be given ethical consideration if they possess certain qualities such as self-awareness and the ability to make moral decisions. So what does it actually mean to be human? Throughout the years, a variety of people have tried to answer this question through scientific research and spiritual practice. Since many different viewpoints were brought up by this issue, it is better to make an effort to understand humans on a deeper level. To enumerate, there are certain traits that sets humans apart from other species.
Why do we conform, and how far does it go? Solomon Asch asked this question and devised an experiment to see if subjects would conform even if they were uncertain that the group norm was incorrect, this eventually led to Milgram’s and Stanford’s own psychological questions about not only conformity, but also obedience and the roles in which people adapt. This paper will take a deeper look into these experiments, and apply their findings to current and past national events such as the American Armed Forced at detention facilities and the systematic torture of prisoners, along with how these experiments relate to advertising and how it is designed to stimulate a since of conformity among a generation. Finally how does society react towards