Milgram's Shock Experiment With Multiple Shocks

Levy’s (2015) argument contains multiple flaws. The first flaw surrounds the example of Milgram’s Shock Experiment that he used. The experiment shows that people did follow the norm, but it does not show if the participants actions were outside of what they would normally do, which is an essential factor for situationism. If the participants would normally behave or engage in a way that led to criminal actions, then the example does not demonstrate its point: “ This kind of experiment cannot test whether the subject‘s action in the experiment correlates with any of her other actions. For example, we cannot say whether subjects who administer the full set of shocks in a Milgram-style experiment also walk past people slumped in doorways more often than subjects who refuse to administer all the shocks” (Taylor, 2010, p. 46). If the subjects normally behaved in ways that correlates with how they responded in the

To further this point, Levy (2015), greatly underestimates the theory of dispositionism. The main issue some found with this theory is that it they believe it had a hard time finding a solution for why some peoples actions change in certain instances.

Some psychologists believe that in order to predict one’s behavior in social situations, it depends on how they believe the other person will respond: “The ability to control one’s outcomes in social situations often depends on one’s ability to predict others’ behavior. The quality of everyday life decisions, such as the decision to approach or avoid others, to compete or cooperate, or to seek or avoid help, depends on one’s ability to predict how others will respond” (Liberman, 2003, p. 485). Based on this information, it seems that every choice, no matter what the situation is a voluntary choice. An individual may not ask for help because they believe it will