Milgram Vs Diana Baumrind Analysis

Argument Synthesis
Option #1:
Stanley Milgram vs. Diana Baumrind

At very young ages, most of us are taught the importance of being obedient. Many of us may have even been rewarded for obedience and punished for disobedience. For most of us, being obedient creates a sense of accomplishment and pride, but what happens when we are put in a position where obeying a certain order results with violating ones own moral beliefs? In 1963, Stanley Milgram, a professor of psychology at Yale University, designed and conducted a series of very controversial experiments to test one’s limits of obedience (Milgram 358). Milgram wanted to measure participants’ willingness to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting
with their personal conscience. The results were not only shocking, but they also show how we are living in a society where human obedience is beginning to override human ethics. Milgram’s basic experimental design was set up so that participants would come to a psychology laboratory to take part in what they believed was a study of memory and learning. One participant was designated as the ‘teacher’ and the other the ‘learner.’ The experimenter explains to the participants that the study is concerned with the effects of punishment on learning (Milgram 360). After watching the “learner” be strapped into a smaller version of an electric chair, the “teacher” is taken into another room to begin the experiment. For each wrong answer that the “learner” gives, the “teacher” is ordered by the experimenter to flip a switch that gives the “learner” an electric shock. The electric shock switches are labeling from “Slight Shock” to “XXX” according to their strength, and each time the “learner” gets an answer wrong, the “teacher” is instructed to increase the electric shock to the next level. The twist in the experiment was that focal point was actually only the “teacher.” There were no electric shocks actually being given to the “learner.” Instead, the sounds of the electric shocks and the “learner’s” screams and complaints were fake and pre-recorded. Milgram believed that by setting the experiment up in this way, he would be able to “test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist” (Milgram 359). Milgram published the results of his experiment in the article “The Perils of Obedience.” Against many people’s predictions, the results actually showed that the participants were more likely to obey the experimenter by administering increased levels of electric shocks until the end of the experiment rather than disobeying the experimenter by refusing to administer the electric shocks to the “learner.” Many participants showed signs of stress and regret throughout the experiment, but those feelings usually did not outweigh their feelings of obligation to obey. Milgram uses two theories to help explain his experimental results: The Theory of Conformism and The Agentic State Theory.
The Theory of Conformism states that “a subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy” (Miller 14), and the Agentic State Theory, wherein, per Milgram, “the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer see himself as responsible for his actions” (Miller 16). The Theory of Conformism is seem throughout Milgram’s experiments any time the “teacher” questioned the experimenter’s orders but decided to obey anyways, and the Agentic State Theory is seen throughout the experiments anytime the “teacher” questioned who would be help responsible for the well-being of the “learner.” Once the experimenter explained that he would take the responsibility, the “teacher” agreed to continue on with the electric
shocks. Milgram’s experiments and results sparked much controversy. Not only were people shocked with the idea that people were capable of such inhumane acts in order to be obedient, but many people were also questioned the morality and validity of Milgram’s obedience study. Psychologist Diana Baumrind is one of those critics who published an article reviewing Milgram’s experiments on obedience. Baumrind blames Milgram “for ‘entrapping’ his subjects and potentially harming their ‘self-image or ability to trust adult authorities in the future” (Baumrind 371). Baumrind’s review on Milgram’s experiments focuses on the potential emotional disturbance that the participants were exposed to. Baumrind feels that the information collected from the experiments was not beneficial enough to outweigh the possible harm inflicted on the participants. She writes, “It is important that as research psychologists we protect our ethical sensibilities rather than adapt our personal standards to include as appropriate the kind of indignities to which Milgram’s subjects were exposed” (Baumrind 376). Baumrind goes on to explain that the environment in which the experiments were conducted do not offer realistic predictions for what people would do in similar “real life” situations. Baumrind has some important points about protecting one’s dignity, self-esteem, and trust.
However, the results from Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments lead me to believe that there definitely is a growing issue in human nature where obedience takes precedence over ethics and morals. Milgram’s experiments clearly showed some evidence that people were more willing to obey rather than disobey an authority figure even if that meant harming another individual. It’s understandable that people may have long-term effects upon realizing the things they were willing to do in order to be obedient, but in my eyes this would just be a chance to better yourself as a person. Who says the participants in this study didn’t learn about themselves as individuals and make the necessary changes within their selves to be able to base their future decisions on their morals and ethics rather than in order to be obedient? Overall, I think it’s time to look more closely at Milgram’s experiments and the information gathered from them so that we can better understand and possibly even reverse the natural tendency of human’s to obey authority when in situations that go against their morals and
ethics.

Works Cited

Baumrind, Diana. “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience.”
Writing and Reading Across the Ciriculum. Tenth Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. 371-377. Print.

Milgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience.” Writing and Reading Across the
Ciriculum. Tenth Ed. Laurence Behrens and Leonard J. Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. 358-370. Print.

Miller, Arthur G. The Obedience Experiments: A Case Study of Controversy in Social
Science. New York: Praeger, 1986. Print.