In 1963, Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale University, conducted a study on obedience to authoritative figures which focused on how far the participant would go to obey the experimenter even if they thought they were harming someone. He first assembled 40 male participants, ranging in age and occupation, telling them that the study was about learning. The participants even received $4.50 just for showing up (McLeod). Separately, each participant was introduced to another participant who was actually a part of the experiment. The experimenter then described the role of the “teacher” and “learner” in the study and made the participants draw to see which role they would take. Making the participants draw made the sampling look random, but …show more content…
She condemns Milgram’s sampling technique saying in the article “Classic Dialogue: Was Stanley Milgram’s Study of Obedience Unethical?” that, “his sampling techniques are seldom of a scope which would justify the meaning with which he would like to endow his results”. This shows how she doesn’t believe the results of this study could be generalizable since the participants volunteered to take part in the study for the money and would inherently obey the experimenter. The fact that Milgram’s study was held in a laboratory also makes it hard to generalize the results to a real-life situation. Baumrind believed that Milgram’s experiment was unethical because of the amount of psychological stress brought onto the subject, Milgram’s lack of awareness for the subjects’ well-being, and the possible harmful effect on the subject’s trust of other authorities in the future. She brings into attention how even though the subjects were only following orders from the experimenter, they may still take responsibility for their actions and dwell on the fact that they could’ve actually hurt someone. It terms of procedures, Baumrind criticizes the way Milgram tried to assure that the participants left the laboratory in a state of well-being. She says that it would be hard to get rid of that amount of psychological stress inflicted on the participant, and Milgram’s casual reassurance is not reliable. She also points out how the objective manner in which Milgram reports the participants’ discomfort by stuttering, trembling, and profusely sweating contradicts the way he graphically presented these disturbances. Baumrind further states how signs of tension should not be seen in a participant, even though Milgram says he didn’t expect them to react that way and the tension was only