Stanley Milgram's 'Experiments On Obedience'

Stanley Milgram’s “Experiments on Obedience” is possibly the most famous psychology experiment ever performed; additionally, it is also one of the most controversial and disputed experiments. In Diana Baumrind’s “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience,” she uses her own expertise to challenge the techniques used, ethics, and conclusions made from the experiment. On the other hand, Ian Parker in his article “Obedience” challenges similar ideas to Baumrind’s; however, Parker uses the opinions of numerous professionals in his article to back up his claims. While the experiment is one of the most famous psychological experiments, both Parker and Baumrind question the ethics of what is performed in the experiments, the manner in which

Baumrind, using her expertise in the psychology field, believes that, in reference to the stress seen in the subjects, “[Milgram’s] casual assurance that these tensions were dissipated before the subject left the laboratory is unconvincing” (92). Baumrind forms her opinion that Milgram did not spend enough time and effort aiding the subjects in recovering from any potential trauma by using her expertise in psychology. Parker also addresses the issues of whether the subjects were mistreated by directly quoting from a subject and Milgram. One of the subjects from the experiment stated ‘“Since taking part in the experiment… I have suffered a mild heart attack. The one thing my doctor tells me that I must avoid is any form of tension”’ (98). Parker uses this example to show that this subject was not cured of his trauma and anxiety from the experiment, and the subject states that the heart attack was a result of stress from the experiment. This example shows that there could have been numerous subjects that experienced uncured

Baumrind believes that the connection between the two is “unclear,” and she further distinguishes between the two by pointing out the Nazis perceived their victims “as subhuman and not worthy of consideration” (93). This is very much unlike Milgram’s experiment, where the subjects viewed the person they were “shocking” as equals, rather than as subhuman. Milgram’s own comparison of his subjects, as pointed out by Baumrind, is further discounted when compared to his own findings that “most of his subjects were concerned about their victims” (93). Parker uses Heunderikus Stam’s questioning of Milgram’s experiment to expand upon the comparison between his subjects and Nazis. Stam questions Milgram: “If you wanted to demonstrate obedience to authority wouldn’t you better showing a film about the Holocaust?” (101). Stam points out that the obedience in people is already well documented from World War II and there is no need for the experiment. Parker also uses Daniel Jonah Goldhagen to talk about this topic. Goldhagen, in reference to the Holocaust perpetrators, states “You’re carrying [the orders] out because you think it’s right” (102). Furthermore, he believes they carry these out mainly due to this reason not because they were just following orders. They act not out of obedience but rather out of compliance. This is not the case in Milgram’s experiment, for the subjects are not “killing people