Stanley Milgram's Experiment On Obedience
IB Psychology (HL) Krissy Gear
Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience P. 3 July 1961, Yale University Psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment to test peoples’ obedience to authority figures. He wanted to see how many people would comply or resist commands by (an idea of) an authority figure. Milgram’s experiment began with two men about twenty to fifty years in age. The participants volunteered through an advertisement and a promise of $4.50 for their participation. One man would assume the role of the “teacher”, and the other would act as the “student”. Milgram then explained to them the process of what would transpire. The student would be strapped to a chair in one room and the teacher would sit at a desk in another room, where neither man could see each other. The teacher would read off words in a sequence to the student. If the student answered correctly, the teacher would proceed to the next question. If he answered incorrectly, the teacher would press a level to give the student a shock. Each time the student answered a question incorrectly, the voltage of the shock increased. This process ended when one of three things happened: the teacher refused to inflict any more pain on the student, the teacher reached the end of the test, or the test conductor …show more content…
ended the experiment. What really happened, though, was that the “student” was not actually being shocked; the test was rigged. The “student” offered many wrong answers, forcing the teacher to provide another shock. The man complaining about having heart problems and demanding he be let out was actually a pre-recording that was set to play each time a certain number of volts was applied. When the experiment was concluded, the teacher and the student met in a friendly environment and chatted or shared a smoke before leaving the facility that the experiment had transpired. Milgram observed several participants somewhat chuckle or laugh to themselves. He concluded that 14/40 of those people were nervously laughing and that they did not, in fact, enjoy hurting the other man. Before Milgram conducted his experiment, he asked several psychologists to predict how many people they thought would continue to shock the other person, even when in pain, when given the order to. Their answer was ten per cent; the reality was fifty percent of the participants obeyed the commands fully, disregarding the student’s cries of pain and protest. He came to the conclusion that the vast majority of people would comply to the demands of a greater authority figure, even if it was wrong or forced someone to hurt another human being. It’s a scary thought to think that half of the people involved in this experiment continued to go on with the procedure, even when they were “hurting” the other person— and the operation was a fluke, commanded by a psychologist from Yale. If someone that insignificant can hold that much power over people, what sort of things would we do if it was the government demanding requests? One issue that has sparked a great deal of controversy regarding Milgram’s experiment is the ethicalness— or lack, thereof— of it.
Psychologist Diana Baumrind argues that “Stanley Milgram’s study of obedience did not meet ethical standards for research,” because “participants were subjected to a research design that caused undue psychological stress that was not resolved after the study.” However, that statement is countered by the fact that after the experiment took place, 83.7% of the participants were glad to be in the experiment and had no problem with it. 1.3% were sorry to have been in the experiment, and the remaining 15.1% were neither sorry nor
glad. I believe that the pros outweighed the cons in this experiment. While the possibility exists that the participants could be emotionally scarred, the chances are unlikely. Even if that was the case, the importance of the knowledge obtained from this study would have condoned the sacrifice of a few peoples’ sanity. Seeing how much power a mere psychologist could hold over so many people gives us a glimpse as to what type of power someone with more authority might hold over people. A police officer? The army? The government? It is important to know to under what circumstances what our limits are and what we, as humans, might do to other humans when pushed.
Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience P. 3 July 1961, Yale University Psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment to test peoples’ obedience to authority figures. He wanted to see how many people would comply or resist commands by (an idea of) an authority figure. Milgram’s experiment began with two men about twenty to fifty years in age. The participants volunteered through an advertisement and a promise of $4.50 for their participation. One man would assume the role of the “teacher”, and the other would act as the “student”. Milgram then explained to them the process of what would transpire. The student would be strapped to a chair in one room and the teacher would sit at a desk in another room, where neither man could see each other. The teacher would read off words in a sequence to the student. If the student answered correctly, the teacher would proceed to the next question. If he answered incorrectly, the teacher would press a level to give the student a shock. Each time the student answered a question incorrectly, the voltage of the shock increased. This process ended when one of three things happened: the teacher refused to inflict any more pain on the student, the teacher reached the end of the test, or the test conductor …show more content…
ended the experiment. What really happened, though, was that the “student” was not actually being shocked; the test was rigged. The “student” offered many wrong answers, forcing the teacher to provide another shock. The man complaining about having heart problems and demanding he be let out was actually a pre-recording that was set to play each time a certain number of volts was applied. When the experiment was concluded, the teacher and the student met in a friendly environment and chatted or shared a smoke before leaving the facility that the experiment had transpired. Milgram observed several participants somewhat chuckle or laugh to themselves. He concluded that 14/40 of those people were nervously laughing and that they did not, in fact, enjoy hurting the other man. Before Milgram conducted his experiment, he asked several psychologists to predict how many people they thought would continue to shock the other person, even when in pain, when given the order to. Their answer was ten per cent; the reality was fifty percent of the participants obeyed the commands fully, disregarding the student’s cries of pain and protest. He came to the conclusion that the vast majority of people would comply to the demands of a greater authority figure, even if it was wrong or forced someone to hurt another human being. It’s a scary thought to think that half of the people involved in this experiment continued to go on with the procedure, even when they were “hurting” the other person— and the operation was a fluke, commanded by a psychologist from Yale. If someone that insignificant can hold that much power over people, what sort of things would we do if it was the government demanding requests? One issue that has sparked a great deal of controversy regarding Milgram’s experiment is the ethicalness— or lack, thereof— of it.
Psychologist Diana Baumrind argues that “Stanley Milgram’s study of obedience did not meet ethical standards for research,” because “participants were subjected to a research design that caused undue psychological stress that was not resolved after the study.” However, that statement is countered by the fact that after the experiment took place, 83.7% of the participants were glad to be in the experiment and had no problem with it. 1.3% were sorry to have been in the experiment, and the remaining 15.1% were neither sorry nor
glad. I believe that the pros outweighed the cons in this experiment. While the possibility exists that the participants could be emotionally scarred, the chances are unlikely. Even if that was the case, the importance of the knowledge obtained from this study would have condoned the sacrifice of a few peoples’ sanity. Seeing how much power a mere psychologist could hold over so many people gives us a glimpse as to what type of power someone with more authority might hold over people. A police officer? The army? The government? It is important to know to under what circumstances what our limits are and what we, as humans, might do to other humans when pushed.