Stanley Milgram's View Of Obedience

Obedience is omnipresent; it is difficult to differentiate between obedience and conformity, therefore it is a complicated subject of social psychology. However, Stanley Milgram was very keen to understand the phenomena of obedience, and created a dramatic masterpiece. Stanley Milgram is a key figure in psychology; he was interested in many different aspects of life, however his work on the field of obedience is highly valued and still exiting for both psychologists and lay people. The aim of this essay is to expose the historical context of his book together with its influences, while demonstrating a deep understanding of his groundbreaking work.
Stanley Milgram grew up as a Jew in New York, during the Second World War. He was horrified to
In case of the wrong answer from the ‘learner’ the ‘teacher’ was required to assist an electric shock using a shock generator. The shock generator had 30 lever switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts. Volunteers were presented with a sample shock (45 V) prior to the experiment, therefore they believed that the shock generator is real and working. The ‘learner’ started to grunt from 75 V and as the voltage went up, he was expressing painful groans. At 300 V he shouted that he would no longer answer and he did not provide any further noise after 330 volts. From time to time participants turned to the ‘experimenter’ for guidance and were instructed to continue. Milgram then measured the obedience with the maximum shock that each participant administered, the scores were expected to range between 0 (no shock administered) to 30 (highest shock
His research was criticised by many for causing unreasonable stress for the participants. Baumrind criticised him for the lack of regard shown to the participants by using Milgram’s own words against his work. According to her and many other psychologists the distress and anxiety experienced by the volunteers should have been enough to stop the experiment (Baumrind, 1964). Milgram was also criticised for the participants’ right to withdraw. Although he stated that participants will be paid as soon as they arrive at the laboratory and they have the right to withdraw at any moment during the study, whenever the ‘teacher’ was looking for advice or objected to carry on, they were instructed by the ‘experimenter’ that ‘it is absolutely essential that you continue’ or ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’ (Milgram, pp. 23, 1974). This contradicts with their rights of withdrawal, however many participants were able to stand up against the order of the authority and stated ‘If this were Russia maybe, but not in America’ (Milgram, pp. 49, 1974). On the other hand the aim of the experiment was to study obedience, therefore the instructions were necessary. In chapter fourteen Milgram is acknowledging the problems for his method and provides acceptable reasons, for example he justifies the laboratory settings for his experiment by using this metaphor ‘…much as the basic process of combustion is the same for both a