The Milgram Experiment Usually, people follow given orders from authority. Authority can be a work boss, parents, teachers, etc. We are taught to follow orders at a young age so we won’t have issues with obedience in the future. The Milgram Experiment was basically testing how far someone could commit to their obedience before it became too much. There were two groups in this experiment, the teachers and students. All of the volunteers to the experiments were the teachers and they had some actors play the students. The idea was to punish the students for their wrong answer through a shock treatment (http://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm 1). Throughout the experiment, they began to realize that the “test subjects”
Psychologist, Stanley Milgram, wanted to know if people would cause harm on other humans simply because they were ordered to do so (he was inspired by Nazi soldiers, who corrected their actions in World War II by saying they were just following orders). Milgram designed an experiment where participants were told they were testing a learning technique, where a student had to learn a word pattern, and were punished by electric shock if they got the answer wrong. The “student” was an assistant of Milgram’s, but the participant, who was the “teacher” and the person to give the electric shock, thought this person was just an innocent participant. The teacher would read out a question, and if the student (who sat in an adjacent room, where they
The student and teacher were placed in separate rooms and an instructor was placed in the same room as the teacher. He would then attempt to convince the teacher to continue the experiment even if the student starts crying out or wanting to leave. The teacher was required to “shock” the student if they said an incorrect answer. However, the ‘shocks’ became more intense and came with each incorrect answer. They eventually started getting very dangerous and potentially life threatening.
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.
The teacher would be the lab rat thinking he was administering a shock for each fallacious response, and with each erroneous reply the shock would intensify. The astonishing fact was all participants would continue to 300 volts, which would precipitate extreme torment. Furthermore, two-thirds would proceed on to shock the learner with 450 volts, which would result in death, hypothetically.
1. What rationale do the author(s) give for conducting the study? The author that is conducting this research is testing the obedience of a subject when dealing with “stocking a victim” by use of a shock generator. There are thirty levels of shock that are generated varying from a slight shock to a severe shock.
The first run had the learner get 3 answers correct and 7 answers wrong, resulting in a shock of 105 volts. In the second run, the teacher was told to read a list of words until the learner got the correct pair which meant that the teacher would have to increase the voltage up to 450 volts which were labeled as “Danger Severe Shock”. At around 300 volts the learner would start kicking against the wall and not respond to the teacher anymore. If the teacher failed to shock the learner the experimenter would give 4 responses that urged the teacher to administer the shock. The experimenter would either say “ Please Continue”, “The experiment requires that you continue”, “It is essential that you continue”, or finally “ You have no other choice you must go on”.
In 1963, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a controversial, but highly revered, study on obedience. The experiment was designed to test people’s morals versus an extreme authority, but, as predicted, obedience prevailed. Then in 1973, Philip G. Zimbardo created his own experiment, not unlike Milgram’s, that analyzed the potential of individuals to withstand the pressure of succumbing to an obedient role based on the environment. Both Stanley Milgram, author of “The Perils of Obedience,” and Philip Zimbardo, author of “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” conducted these experiments to show how an ordinary person’s obedience could be affected based off of the situation they are put in.
In experiment 13, the same situation occurred except for the fact that the experimenter as now a “common man”. The results of obedience lowered greatly. 16 of the 20 subject refused to continue. This proved that the subject is obedient, to a person with authentic authority and not a “common man”.
Would people actually issue a shock that could be potentially fatal to the person they are issuing the test to? The biggest part of this was the influence of the “professor” that was in the room with the “teachers”. Whenever a particularly large shock was issued to the “learner” he would cry out in pain. This caused several people to question whether
Deception from a moral viewpoint would be something that is seen as wrong, but in a study or experiment for research I think deception is something that is necessary to gain certain knowledge that we wouldn 't be able to gain using regular methods. Usually, the ends justify the means to a deceptive experiments and they usually have good intentions behind them. Many people may be angry after the experiment is over but it is shown that people enjoy an experiment with deception more than an experiment without deception; and people also benefit from them more, educationally. I believe deception is a necessary tool for learning about human behavior and human reaction. Deceptive experiments are experiments that really make you think when the experiment
Subjects were told to shock a person who they believed to also be a subject if they answered a question wrong. The people getting shocked were actors and were not actually receiving electrical shocks. Many of the subjects continued to give high voltage shocks because they were told to. This experiment was viewed as unethical because of the emotional stress it put on the subjects.
In an experiment described in Stanley Milgram’s article ,“The Perils of Obedience” most of the subjects as described as teachers, tend to follow orders from the experimenter even when they knew the victim (student) were being hurt by the electric shocks. The experiment in detail is to test how much pain someone can give to another just because he was ordered to. The experiment was divided between two people, a student and a teacher. They were to read a pair of words, then remember the second word afterwards. If the answer was incorrect then they were to be punished by the electric shock.
Participants were ordered to ask the learners a series of questions, and if they got them incorrect, they would give them a shock which gradually got more powerful with each question that they missed. The learner was really just a voice recording, so there was not anyone truly being shocked, but the teachers were under the impression that the experiment was real. Each time the learner got a question wrong, the teacher shocked the learner. The learner would wince from pain, and it would get louder and more aggressive as the experiment went on. Some of the participants wanted to stop the experiment because they didn't want
In the experiment, Milgram uses purposeful deception as the teacher is the naive subject and is told they are participating in a memory and learner psychology experiment and are in charge of delivering shocks to the learner, who, in fact, is an actor. The majority of the participants in the study were obedient to the experimenter even though the experimenter "did not threaten the subjects with punishments such as loss of income, community ostracism or jail for failure to obey. Neither could he offer incentives" (Milgram 651). Despite having nothing to gain, the subjects continued participating in the experiment. The participants continued to administer shocks to the student because they were instructed to
During the Stanford prison experiment the actual boys who agreed to do the experiment had no idea what it was, they thought it would be a fun idea to help out with an experiment. The only reason why the experiment stopped after only a week was because a women who was one of the people behind it saw the prisoners walking to the bathroom and they had bags on their heads and they were in single file and she got upset. She was upset because they lost the purpose of the experiment and actually turned these boys into