Stanley Milgram obedience experiment free essay sample

Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiment One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by  Stanley Milgram (1963).  Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment 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 of their superiors. The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected participants for his experiment by advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.   The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find o ut who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant). There were a lot of things unethical about this experiment. The main one being that the participants were lied to be about what they were participating in. As a researcher, it was Milgrams job to invent an experiment were his hypothesis could be tested but also were participants would be informed of what they were participating in. This leads to the unethical issue that this experiment caused most of the participant’s extreme distress, which was an indirect result of them being lied to about the experiment. The fact they that also used the Yale campus and the Yale name of the fliers is also unethical since the article stated that Yale had no hand in the experiment, particularly as a safeguard should the experiment go wrong. This just added even more to the participants fake sense of assuredness that the experiment was legitimate and the false sense of security they felt that their psychological well being would be looked after, which is was apparently not from the study We are satisfied that no lasting harm was done to the participants. In our opinion, the Milgram experiments caused no harm, although they did reveal a basic flaw in the way most people respond to authority. The subjects were told that they could stop at any time and the calm orders to continue the experiment they thought they were participating in were merely a prod. They were not bound to a chair and told that they would not be unbound unless they complied. They complied willingly, even if against what their own conscience may have been telling them. Had there been someone actually wired up to receive voltage though That would definitely have carried it into the territory of harm. It’s fair to say that the debriefing at the end of the experiment eliminated both long and short-term problems. Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student. One cried from emotion when he saw the student alive, and explained that he thought he had killed him. To Milgrams credit, he took pains to make sure his subjects suffered no lasting harm. Milgram did  debrief  his subjects. In other words, he revealed the true nature of the experiment. He also arranged a reconciliation with the learner as soon as the experiment was over, asking the confederate who played the role to come into the room and shake hands with the teacher before the teacher left. categories:Milgram also asked the subjects after debriefing whether they were very glad, glad, neither sorry nor glad, sorry, or very sorry to have participated. He found less than 2% in any group said they were sorry or very sorry. In fact, the subjects who had been most obedient, going all the way to the top of the shock scale, were most likely to say they were very glad to have participated in the experiment. Milgram explained to them everything that they needed to know so that no long or short-term effects would occur. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority (Milgram, 1964). Many of the experimenters were still confused on exactly what happened in the experiment. The short term effects would be that some of the people, might still be shaken up, experiencing nervousness and sometimes confusion from being reminded of the experiment. Was this experiment justified? To many no  ethics plays a major part in this experiment. Even though the participants were inform, how can you sit back and watch a person go crazy or have seizures off what you are doing to them. Had Stanley Milgram’s study been done before or during World War II, the Nazi’s would have definitely used this information to their defense. They would have used this as an excuse for their wretched behavior, even though their actions were completely inexcusable. The results from this experiment definitely removed responsibility from the individual. The Nazis’ could say that they were simply â€Å"following orders†. This could potentially be an example of institutional authority. Institutional authority is following orders or instructions from a higher power or group. They may lack in personal responsibility because they could blame the person for their actions by saying â€Å"they told me to†. The money was responsible for the findings. It influenced the participants to do what they were told. The money helped the participants to put their morals to the side even if what they thought they were doing was wrong. It was the drive that was pushing them to do the experiment. Nonetheless, paying someone doesn’t changes the dynamics of the situation. Throughout the experiment there was little said about money. It was more focused on the factor obedience played in the experiment. The article talked about the tension the subjects felt when being obedient and how relieved they felt when it was over. The subjects probably werent thinking about the money. Being paid is most likely what got people to sign up but their willingness to obey is what made them stay. Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.   Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. Obey parents, teachers, anyone in authority etc.