Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Opinions on milgram experiment
Important of conflict theory
How do social norms influence human behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Opinions on milgram experiment
Important of conflict theory
How do social norms influence human behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Opinions on milgram experiment
Among multiple issues including giving misleading information, the most dominate is the lack of consent Milgram received from his subjects to participate in such a test (102). While I do see that this is immoral, there is no way that Milgram could have completed his experiments effectively if he had done it morally. The first issue is if he explains what is actually going to happen during the experiments, that would obviously hurt the integrity of his results. Also, going back to how the experiments help us, if those who participated knew what was going to happen, it wouldn’t have affected them as severely. It was the shock that the experiment gave that brought their life choices into question.
Firstly, in order for Milgram’s experiment to work the people had to obey and do what the researchers told them to do. The definition of obedience defined in the book is, “...a compliance with higher authorities in a hierarchical structure. ”(Schaefer, 103) This is exactly what happened in the experiment.
I also agree with the experiment because it is common, especially in North Dakota, for Caucasians to view those of a different race differently from themselves. It can be very disheartening to witness as they may be very intelligent and friendly but are looked down upon because of how they look or
In the experiment, Milgram uses purposeful deception as the teacher is the naive subject and is told they are participating in a memory and learner psychology experiment and are in charge of delivering shocks to the learner, who, in fact, is an actor. The majority of the participants in the study were obedient to the experimenter even though the experimenter "did not threaten the subjects with punishments such as loss of income, community ostracism or jail for failure to obey. Neither could he offer incentives" (Milgram 651). Despite having nothing to gain, the subjects continued participating in the experiment. The participants continued to administer shocks to the student because they were instructed to
Stanely Milgram composed an experiment to help reveal the murderous acts inflicted by Nazis upon Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other diversities. Milgram wanted to show whether individuals would obey power figures, notwithstanding when the instructions given were ethically off-base. My outside source states that "at the time, the Milgram experiment ethnics seemed reasonable, but by the stricter controls in modern psychology, this experiment would not be allowed today (Martyn Shuttleworth). " This experiment seemed to be focused on one question, was human instinct naturally malicious or could sensible individuals be forced by power into unnatural activities?
Scientific experiments can have little significance. Others can change lives. In Daniel Keyes’ 1966 novel Flowers for Algernon, Charlie Gordon partakes in an experiment designed to increase his intelligence. However, the experiment ends up failing. In Robert Louis Stevenson’s
He saw that the more personal, or close, the real participant had to be to the fake one, while they were being shocked, affected the obedience as well. He also noticed that if there were two other fake participants teaching that refused to shock their learners that the real participant would not comply. Finally, he tested the experimenter telling the real patient to shock the learner by telephone, instead of actually being there in person, reduced obedience as well (McLead). The Milgram experiment and the Nuremburg trials can relate extensively to explain how the Holocaust happened the way it did.
Like Psychologist Diana Baumrind did so in her article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments”. Where she makes it very clear that she disagrees with causing individuals stress and discomfort. In her article, Baumrind states “It is potentially harmful to a subject to commit, on the course of an experiment, acts which he himself considers unworthy, particularly when he has been entrapped into committing such acts by an individual he has reason to trust” which in this case the trustworthy individual would be Stanley Milgram. Baumrind also worried about the dangers of the serious aftereffects that may ensure because of the stress and discomfort Stanley Milgram’s experiment has caused. Even though Stanley Milgram states that “After the interview, procedures were undertaken to assure that the subject would leave the laboratory in a state of well-being.”
The blue eyed – brown eyed experiment in my opinion is indeed ethical. The issue at hand with this experiment is will it cause permeant future psychological damage. Jane Elliott conducted this experiment with her third-grade students which some would say it is too harsh of an exercise for a group that young; She wanted to teach her student that discrimination is wrong which have been a topic they discussed from the first day of school but felt the student would become confused with the fact she just honored Dr. king in the month of February and now she had to explain to them that he was assassinated because of discrimination. Jane Elliott agreed that this exercise can do Psychological damage if not conducted correctly but the benefits are remarkable.
While arguably one of the defining psychological studies of the 20th Century, the research was not without flaws. Almost immediately the study became a subject for debate amongst psychologists who argued that the research was both ethically flawed and its lack of diversity meant it could not be generalized. Ethically, a significant critique of the experiment is that the participants actually believed they were administering serious harm to a real person, completely unaware that the learner was in fact acting. Although Milgram argued that the illusion was a necessary part of the experiment to study the participants’ reaction, they were exposed to a highly stressful situation. Many were visibly distraught throughout the duration of the test
The Milgram experiment was conducted to analyze obedience to authority figures. The experiment was conducted on men from varying ages and varying levels of education. The participants were told that they would be teaching other participants to memorize a pair of words. They believed that this was an experiment that was being conducted to measure the effect that punishment has on learning, because of this they were told they had to electric shock the learner every time that they answered a question wrong. The experiment then sought out to measure with what willingness the participants obeyed the authority figure, even when they were instructed to commit actions which they seemed uncomfortable with.
The experiment was executed well. Yet, there are unethical practices happened during the experiment. First, the participants were not fully informed about the experiment. The researchers did not explain to the participants the processes in conducting the experiment. The participants were not informed that they would be arrested by cops in their homes.
His experiment was all a hoax. The shock machine was fake. All he wanted was to know how many people would be obedient and how many would be defiant. Much to Milgram’s surprise sixty-five percent of people did what were told of them, and only thirty-five percent were
I believe that the experiment is considered ethical because it only affected the children emotionally for a very short
It is an interesting thought piece, yes, but that is about all it is good for. First of all, the selection process was flawed. Think about the people who would actually volunteer for such a study. They clearly were willing to treat people like animals at the outset, as most people would not even think twice about signing up. Next, in an interview with one of the main perpetrators of the abuse, he said that he just wanted to shake up the situation, make it interesting.