Change In Milgram's Argument Of Obedience

Americans are not naturally less likely to obey something that they no is wrong. The amount of obedience was highly underestimated. The subjects endured both emotional strain and tension, which was unexpected. 6. What do the results of this study mean in practical terms?

Milgram’s experiment displays how much was situated in a time and how his life affected his choices, and his experiments have gained notoriety. The discursive approach to attitudes builds on a criticism of key assumptions and methods of the cognitive social approach and highlights the limitations of the experimental method for developing a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon such as obedience. Through Gibson’s rhetorical analysis he highlighted the importance of the interaction between participant and experimenter which suggests that the standard view on experiments could do with revising. The experimental setting although it is great in most cases it can create a hostile environment with individuals acting out of character and therefore not creating the best results. Gibson has highlighted that the nervous anxious participants that were portrayed in the original papers were in fact passive and argumentative and that’s just by looking at it differently and examining different things such as the language people use to be persuasive.

During Stanley Milgram’s 1960’s study, he made subjects believe that they were harming another subject in order to test obedience. He did this by having the subject ask an actor, who was pretending to be another subject, to remember a word out of a series of words. Whenever the actor fail to get the word correct, the subject would flip a switch that he believe was administering an increasing electric charge. They were told not to stop and to continue increasing the voltage even after the actor began yelling and begging them to stop, and even after he stopped responding all together. The study was to see just how far people are willing to go to follow the orders of an authoritative figure.

In Milgram’s experiment, the longer the teachers were under the influence of the experimenter, the easier it became for them to shock the learner. A specific example of this would be from Fred Prozi, whose results were extremely dramatic. Once the experiment had begun and the learner started to show discomfort from the shocks, Prozi half-heartedly refused to continue. All it took was a little push from the experimenter and the confirmation of having no liability if anything were to happen to get Prozi to continue to give the learner all 450 volts (582-584). Both of these experiments call attention to how easy it is for people to obey a higher authority based on what kind of situation they are

Several of the elements of the experiment protocol were changed, so that Burger (2009) complies with the ethical standards of its time, as far as human participation in experiments were concerned. According to the research findings, obedience estimations were almost to those of Milgram 45 years earlier than the date of Burger’s (2009) experiment. Participants’ responses did not differ in terms of their gender. The above results indicate the validity of Milgram’s agentic state theory in explaining human obedience. It is worth noting, though, that research findings also showed that participants’ responses differed up to a point in terms of their empathic concern and desire for control.

In this essay I will be analyzing many components of the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Obedience Experiment. The main findings of the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed that due to the power of their situational roles, participants had truly become the guards and prisoners that they impersonated. Moreover, the experiment showed how people will readily and innately conform to a social role that they are expected to play, even if it is unethical(Musen, 1988). However, there were concerns about the validity and generalizability of the experiment.

At the forefront of this account is Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment. The experiment saw a learner on one side of the wall and the teacher, the subject of the experiment, on the other. The subject was instructed by the experimenter to meet any wrong answers from the learner with electric shocks of increasing intensity from 15 up to 450 vaults. The subject was given a shock of 45 vaults in order to experience the intensity of the treatment. (Jones 2006:271)

We follow orders and obey rules on a day to day basis. When your mom asks you to do something, like putting the dishes away or cleaning your room you do it without thinking about it. Or how about when students sit still and be quiet all day while their teachers are teaching? It's very easy to say that humans are obedient under authorities. According to most study’s findings, most people in positions of authority are more likely to promote acts of evil and less likely to obey a sense of conscience.

(Russell 2014) Conclusion: Despite controversy Milgram’s experiment was ground breaking. It remains relevant today and is frequently cited in demonstrating the perils of obedience.

In his article “The Experiment of Autonomy,” Stanley Milgram describes the findings of his famous ‘Milgram’s Experiment.’ In the experiment, Milgram hired actors to act as students and asked random people to take the role teacher. The teacher would administer a word memory test to the student and would shock the student when they answered the question incorrectly. The actors, although not actually being shocked, would scream with more and more each shock and eventually refused to answer, during which time they were shocked again. Meanwhile, the ‘scientist’ encouraged the teacher to continue by simply saying “The experiment requires you to go on…”

During the 1960’s Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments to test how a person reacts to authority. He started these tests in response to World War Two and the reports of the German soldiers who claimed they were “just following orders’ when asked about

On day six Zimbardo and Milgram decided to conclude the experiment. Zimbardo originally intended to explore how prisoners adapt to powerlessness, but he has contended that the experiment demonstrates how swiftly arbitrary assignment of power can lead to abuse. (Maher, The anatomy of obedience. P. 408) Once the experiment was completed Zimbardo and Milgram concluded that generally people will conform to the roles they are told to play.

The Milgram experiment is an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram who was a psychologist at Yale University that focus on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person. He would use an electric shock generator and the generator is mark from 15 volts which is slight shock to 375 volts which danger or severe shock to 450 volts which is beyond danger. As a result, people are likely to follow orders given by authority figure. I mention the Milgram experiment because the father in The Sellout wants his son to keep answering the questions despite that the narrator have to shock himself if he does not know

Stanley Milgram is widely talked about in the psychology community, and even outside of it, he wished to look at obedience. He found an interest in authority and obedience because the horrific cases during World War II involving concentration camps. Jerry Burger wished to find out whether people still obey authority in 2006 like participants did in the Milgram study in 1963, 1965, and 1974. The final sample of participants consisted of 29 men and 41 women, ranging from age 20 to 81, with the mean age being 42.9 (Burger, 2009). The experiment was replicated with adjustments so that it would be ethical to carry out.

Answers to this can be found in the similar experiments that Milgram conducted but in different conditions. In one variation of the experiment, Milgram removed the “Yale University” label from the study and conducted the study in a rented office in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Lacking the credible nature provided by the name of Yale University, the number of participants dropped by 17 percent. Another factor contributing to obedience is the proximity of the authority. In another variation the experimenter commanded over a telephone rather than from a desk next to the teacher, and this resulted in the number of participants who administered the highest level of shock decreased drastically by 44 percent.