In chapter four of the book Sociology Matters by Richard T. Schaefer what I found the Stanley Milgram social experiment very interesting. It’s an experiment where people are asked to volunteer in the research on investigating the effects that punishment has on learning. They are asked to shock the learner if they do not get the right answer. Also I did not know what deviance truly was and that it in a way connects with Milgram’s Experiment. Stanley Milgram’s social experiment connects with both obedience, labeling, and deviance. Firstly, in order for Milgram’s experiment to work the people had to obey and do what the researchers told them to do. The definition of obedience defined in the book is, “...a compliance with higher authorities in a hierarchical structure.”(Schaefer, 103) This is exactly what happened in the experiment. The experimenter dressed in a gray technician’s coat which in the volunteers eyes showed authority. This is because in our modern industrial world we are used and taught to submit to submit to people that have a title or uniform that indicates …show more content…
Labeling is how individuals are seen by other people. For example, if a person was an alcoholic that label will stay with them forever and people will judge the person based on that label. In the recreation of the experiment Schulman discovered that white students were more likely to shock the black learners than the white learners. The percentage margin was of 70 percent to 48 percent. As the book says, “... They imposed more shocks on the Black learners that on the White learners.”(Schaefer, 104) This relates to labeling because the white students were labeling the learners by skin color and that is how they decided if they wanted to shock them or not. They based their decisions on how they taught the person deserved it because of their
In the book “Opening Skinner’s Box”, Lauren Slater discusses many complicated ideas relating to certain experiments of recent times. In every chapter, she focuses on one specific experiment and poses many controversial thoughts. One of the chapters I found most interesting was the second chapter titled “Obscura”. In it she walks readers through the experiments of Stanley Milgram and questions the purpose, results, usefulness, and morality of the experiments. To begin, the purpose of the experiments seem to be off to me.
This Milgram research on respect to authority figures was a series of cultural science experiments conducted by Yale University scientist Stanley Milgram in 1961. They assessed the willingness of survey participants, men from a different variety of jobs with varying degrees of training, to obey the authority figure who taught them to do acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Participants were led to think that they were helping an unrelated research, in which they had to distribute electrical shocks to the individual. These fake electrical shocks gradually increased to grades that could have been deadly had they been true. McLeod's article about the Milgram experiment exposed the fact that a high percentage of ordinary people will
Again, Baumrind dismissed Milgram’s experiment insisting that his selection method was not of sufficient scale to validate his results and would make it hard for colleagues who might hold diverging theories to reproduce his results. In Baumrind analysis of Milgram’s experiment she fails to see a correlation between Milgram’s experiment and the relationship between German authority figures and members of the SS. Baumrind also states that she would still question the validity of Milgram’s study even if it was reproduced outside of New Haven and the confines of Yale University as well as how illustrative of human behavior the sample could be when using subjects who volunteered to take part in an experiment conducted outside of a
The subject of this essay concerns the Conformity Experiment, also known as the Obedience to Authority Experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961. He started studying this phenomenon in order to understand the behaviour of individuals subject to authority, after Adolf Eichmann, one of the major organizers of the Holocaust, declared during the trial held in Jerusalem, that he was just carrying out Hitler 's orders. For what reason do humans, in specific circumstances, delegate their own autonomy to authority? Are people able to execute orders, that are conflicting with their own morality and virtue, when those orders are given by an authoritarian figure?
In 1963, Stanley Milgram preformed a study to test the obedience. To understand why the study took place first we must understand what was going on around the world. The world came out of WWII and were trying to make sense of the atrocities that took place under the Nazi regime. Adolf Eichmann, a member of the nazi party, was on trail and when asked what his defense was he stated that He was “just following orders” (Madey). The world was not whiling to accept that as an answer
Furthermore, a parallel fundamental accounts for the concept of Obedience. The psychological study of obedience shows us how shared knowledge shapes personal knowledge in today’s world. Stanley Milgram’s experiment on conformity was an experiment that proved his hypothesis of conformity. Participants in the study were told that they were a part of an experiment studying a person’s capability to learn. Participants sat in front of a window overlooking the learner who sat in another room.
For these students and me, labeling was not necessarily a negative phenomenon. However, much of the labeling that occurs in the media and in society is not positive. For
(Russell 2014) Conclusion: Despite controversy Milgram’s experiment was ground breaking. It remains relevant today and is frequently cited in demonstrating the perils of obedience.
1. Stanley Milgram's conclusions in regards to his experiment were that 84% of the participants reported they were glad they were a part of the study and 1% regretted participating. Also, Milgram's participants revealed they learned to become "less likely to mindlessly obey authority figures and more likely to speak up for themselves and others" (Ruscio 56). Zimbardo's first conclusion was his experiment was out of control because the guards were escalating their abuse towards the prisoners. Second, he questioned the morality of his study after Christina Maslach visited the prison and said "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!"
The Milgram experiment was conducted to analyze obedience to authority figures. The experiment was conducted on men from varying ages and varying levels of education. The participants were told that they would be teaching other participants to memorize a pair of words. They believed that this was an experiment that was being conducted to measure the effect that punishment has on learning, because of this they were told they had to electric shock the learner every time that they answered a question wrong. The experiment then sought out to measure with what willingness the participants obeyed the authority figure, even when they were instructed to commit actions which they seemed uncomfortable with.
Social Influence Response David Myers (2014) writes, “Participants in the Asch and Milgram experiments confronted a dilemma we all face frequently: Do I adhere to my own standards, or do I respond to others? In Milgram’s experiments and their modern replications, participants were torn. Should they respond to the pleas of the victim or the orders of the experimenter? These experiments demonstrated that strong social influences can make people conform to falsehoods or capitulate to cruelty.” (p. 565).
The experiment of ‘A Class Divided’ is a lesson taught by Jane Elliot about discrimination and how it feels to be discriminated against. She first conducted this experiment in 1968 with her class of third graders, she divides people by eye colour and provides collars for them, and she then makes a group of rules separating them and observes how they’re discriminated against in a controlled environment. The experiment breached many ethical guidelines, this is because the experiment wouldn’t have worked otherwise. The rights of the participants was breached in order to achieve accurate results and so that people would feel the humiliation and cage of discrimination.
Even though most of the participants were under the influence of conformity which means a “change in ones behavior to coincide more closely with a group standard”(King 446). I wouldn't be able to go through with giving someone electric shock just because they answered a question wrong, I would have to stop the experiment all together. I think in this experiment there is a big difference between asking someone to shock another human and just sitting them down and them actually testing out the experiment. Most people would say no to shocking another person while just answering questions, but while sitting in a chair and getting told what to do by a person in charge you think its not that dangerous and that its an okay thing to do. Also in the experiment it was important to give the same results to each participant because you wouldn't want a screaming sound for only a 15 voltage power.
1) Stanley Milgram was one of the most influential social psychologists of his time, he was particularly fascinated by the dangers of group behavior and blind obedience to authority. His experiment became controversial, the results of the experiment were deeply revealing about the tensions between the individual and society. In 1962, Stanley Milgram impressed the world with his study on obedience. His theory was tested by an invention with a method that would become a window into human cruelty within. The purpose of the experiment was to understand the inconceivable, as the Germans might allow the extermination of the Jews.
An infamous experiment on obedience to authority by Stanley Milgram’s (1963) has brought a lot of speculations and arguments in both fields of psychology and ethics. Even after decades, the experiment remains controversial to me. It is one of those fascinating studies that has caught my interest. Although it was quite unethical and very deceptive in nature, its findings had brought “disturbing” awareness to us, people. It was disturbing in a sense that most us did not expect to obtain such results but nevertheless, it certainly gave us something to ponder upon.