In today’s society, I think that most individual’s would try an experiment based on
In today’s society, I think that most individual’s would try an experiment based on
Milgram's Experiment brings up the point that people under the pressure of other, will more likely obey orders even if it goes against their moral beliefs. In "To Obey of Not to Obey", most of the soldiers obeyed their superiors because they were taught to do so. Similarly in Migram's Experient, the "teachers" obeyed when the experimenter pressured the subject to continue with the shocks. This can be related to Slaughterhouse Five because the German soldiers are under the command of their superiors who are requiring them to take American prisoners. This pressure was passed down from the German soldiers who demanded the American soldiers to clean up the charred remains of dead civilians after the bombing of Dresden.…
A. Clear and present danger: speech that presents this is not protected. (cant yell fire in a theatre as a joke when there is no fire. Not protected by amendment).…
Luke might have acted this way due to the way he grew up. Luke might have acted this way because his family might have not enacted strict rules on his life. This is evident because of how he spoke with his mom. In the movie, the conversation he has with his mom seemed very casual. Almost seemed like he did not have respect for his mom nor did it seem like he treasured his mom, after she visited him in jail. She was very sick as well. This shows how much Luke has a problem with authority because of the way he talks to his mom. And his learning of authority starts with where he learned authority.This is relevant to the participants in the Milgram experiment. Because there was the few people that refused to continue with the experiment despite…
In Replicating Milgram (The Open University, 2014), Milgram explains how he set up his obedience experiment. His aim was to get a volunteer, a ‘teacher’ to inflict increasing amounts of pain, through electric shocks, to another volunteer a ‘learner’ and to see when the ‘teacher’ would turn to the researcher, the ‘authority figure’ and ask to stop. Unknown to ‘the teacher’, the ‘learner’ and the ‘authority figure’ were aware of the real purpose of the experiment; the ‘teacher’ was told it was to study the effect of punishment on learning, and genuinely thought that they were inflicting pain on the ‘learner’ sat in another room. It was this deception and the emotional stress it generated to the ‘teacher’ that prompted the ethical issues debate…
I am personally disgusted by this study. It makes me sick to see that people were getting shocked for the wrong answer. It is inhumane and horrifying. In the video, you heard a man stating that his heart was bothering him, and the respondent looked at the administrator and said “I will not be responsible for this” and continued on.…
Daniel Parks Freshman Studies Term II Critical Analysis and Milgram’s Response Obedience to Authority and the obedience experiments that produced Stanley Milgram’s famous book have produced almost equal amounts of surprise, curiosity and criticism. The criticism of social psychologist John Darley and playwright Dannie Abse are each representative of the general criticism Milgram has received; Darley focuses on whether the study has any relevance to real world events (such as the Holocaust), and Abse focuses on justification of the experiment, i.e. was the study worth doing in spite of the deception employed and its potential harm to the subjects. To Milgram, this criticism demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals and implications of the obedience study, to which he has responded by restating the goal of the experiment and explaining its beneficial effects upon the subjects.…
Nearly half a century after they were conducted, Milgram’s (1963, 1965, 1974) obedience studies remain among psychology’s most widely known and most often discussed experiments. Briefly, under the guise of a learning study, an experimenter instructed participants to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to a ‘‘learner’’ when the learner made mistakes on a memory task. Although in reality no shocks were delivered, participants were instructed to start with a 15-volt shock for the learner’s first mistake and to increase the voltage in 15-volt increments for each successive mistake. In the basic procedure (Experiment 5), participants could hear the learner’s vocal protests and demands to be set free through the wall that separated…
The subjects in this experiment were not aware of what Milgram is testing them for. Each participants had different reaction to leaners’ pled. Fred Prozi began the experiment calmly but becomes increasingly tense as the experiment proceeds. He was shaking his head saying “who is going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?”(Milgram 4). Prozi was fearing the responsibility of something happening to the learner. Inside him, he did not wanted to hurt the learner. He was afraid of declining to keep the experiment going on because he was expected to continuo by the experimenter. A medical technician named Gretchen Brandt, refused to go any further after 210 volts. She said that she was there on her own free will also didn't want to take the responsibility. She was being who she was in reality and was brave enough to decline the process no…
The Stanley Milgram experiment takes normal everyday people and gives them orders to do horrible…
Stanley Milgram was an extremely famous psychologist who was best known for his groundbreaking experiment on the subject of obedience during the 1960s. Milgram began his career as a psychologist just around the time that the horrifying truth of the concentration camps came out. The fact that almost an entire nation obeyed one man, who commanded them to do inhumane and grotesque acts to other human beings intrigued Stanley Milgram. He became even more interested when he began watching the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who simply did not seem to be the appalling monster that many people expected and portrayed him to be. In fact, Milgram described Eichmann as being less of a “sadistic monster…[and] that he came closer to being an uninspired bureaucrat…
Yale University psychologist, Stanley Milgram, conducted an experiment in 1961 focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they were just following orders from their superiors. Milgram's experiment, which he told his participants was about learning, was to have participants (teacher) question another participant (learner), and when the learner got a question wrong the teacher would shock the learner. For every question wrong, the teacher would increase the amount of volts used in the shock. Of course the experiment was actually about obedience, the learner was an experimenter, and the shock was faked (McLeod). Milgram's was one of the first psychology experiments to use…
By doing this it would allow the person, whether it had been Zimbardo himself or someone else to remain more objective by not being so emotionally and physically involved. Secondly he denied Richard Yacco the ability to leave. Whenever one conducts an experiment, all who are involved should have the right to end their involvement at anytime. Finally there was no proper debriefing, as well as it was argued that many left in a worse mental state then prior to the experiment. Now some may not be bothered by such an experiment in fact, we have seen other controversial studies such as Mailgrams’ study, where he was studying the conflict between personal conscious, and obedience to authority. Milgram had his subjects administer shocks at what they thought to be at a lethal level. In Milgram’s study, they found individuals who were instructed to give shocks based on how some one answered a question, if they got the question wrong, they were to shock the individual, raising the intensity of the shock, though it was actually a hoax. The person who they believed to be receiving the shocks, were actually acting. When one of the subjects would hesitate in fear of hurting or killing the other person , they would be encouraged to continue. What might be considered more alarming then his actual study, was that at least 65 percent actually administered what they thought to be at a lethal level. (…
The participants were not too quick to jump into the research though, until of course, they were given incentives, their cooperation was built on the promise of help and generosity of mankind. As time moved forward, I believe they were still hopeful due in part to the fabrication of treatment, but maybe a bit suspicious, hence the start of the covers for burial preparations if death, in fact, struck them. As the years progressed, many participants died, from the severity of their illness, so therefore much of the primary evidence of feelings and emotions is not known. Over time, I expect that the attitudes toward the experiment, from the perspective of the participants and outsiders, did indeed change, and not positively. In decades following, the attention became negative, angry, and impatient. As of now, I believe people, of all races, are utterly disgusted and outraged. The fact that this continued for nearly forty years is incredible and…
Milgram’s experiment that I would obey until the learner couldn’t take the pain anymore. Even though I agreed to follow through with the experiment my sympathy for the learner would take over. I think for most people it is hard to see another person in so much pain and it would make it all that worse if they were the ones inflicting the pain. If we were to do the experiment today I do think the results would be different. I feel that way because people are now more likely to think for themselves regardless of the circumstances. I think people now would question the reason behind the experiment and wonder why the experiment was being done in the first place. I think people tend to not be so afraid to ask questions or disobey authority than back when the experiment first took place.…
In the early 1900’s many of those who immigrated to America experienced unfair wages and working/ living conditions. Tenement houses were crowded, dark, loud, hot, foul smelling, unhealthy, and there was no fresh air (Riis, 1999). The people living under these conditions, typically didn’t have a choice because it was the only thing within their budget. Workers within the meat-packing industry worked in unsafe and unhealthy conditions. Those who had a job at the Shirtwaist Factory also worked under unsafe conditions and received very low pay. After living and working under such awful conditions for quite some time, many writers addressed the problems in their work in hopes of making a change. These writers are also known as muckrakers. Many…