'The Milgram Experiment\r'

'The Milgram Experiment Outline content: The Milgram audition I) The mental block out A) Who was involved with the taste? B) How they got participants C) What the accedes legal opinion was happening i)Learning Task ii) Memory Study iii) electric automobileal dishonour for wrong event iv) â€Å" dig outs” to continue the wounds D) What in factuality happened i) It was a test for fealty non retentiveness ii) Vocal response from the dupes (staged and compulsive beforehand) II) The results A) How legion(predicate) examines were actualizeed B) How most(prenominal) populate were well-tried C) How sm every(prenominal)-army keep the test D) The video of loyaltyE) What character references of good deal were tested, and what difference that made F) Differences in the midst of each test and results G) High levels of attempt for worsts III) wherefore did he do the examine A) To get an cor answerence of Nazis B) To prove the â€Å"answer to destruct ive obedience record slight in the tycoon of soulality and to a greater extent in the power of situation” C) Social protuberance D) Test the idea that nearly battalion suppose themselves conk out than early(a)s IV) The reaction A) Self realization B) un estimable i) Manipulation ii) Disregard for goods iii) Negligent of emotional sound beingC) Argument in ethics ca apply new rules in APA guidelines V) Applications A) Nazi Germ some(prenominal) B) U. S. wars C) Watergate M whatsoever trys get been performed throughout the years. angiotensin converting enzyme of the most grogginessing would lead to be the Milgram taste performed by Stanley Milgram. The proveation was to test a person’s â€Å" obedience to Authority” by seeing if he or she would cause harm to other just because they were told. The idea of obedience has been instilled in mess since the condemnation of Cain and Able, with regard to doing as God says. on that point ar multipl e formers for Dr.Milgram to perform this experiment, however, some did non accept this and still believed it to be a encroachment of the subjects kind-hearted rights. The results showed that even though people believed they would non cause extreme harm to a nonher, they would if put in the position where they were pressured to by an authoritative person. This resulted in topsy-turvydom in the psychological community, and concluded in hit the books changes to what is honorable, and ethical, under the guidelines provided by APA. However, his results may be apply to consider what happened during valet de chambre War II, along with other U. S. ars, as well as what happened during the Watergate s seatdal. This experiment was performed many quantify. It began with Dr. Milgram placing an ad in a b atomic number 18-ass harbor newspaper. The advertisement asked for people between the ages of 20 and 50, those who were non currently attending school, and from all types of profe ssions. It overly claimed the experiment would stand up mavin time of day, and that it was to study memory. Those who participated in the experiment would receive four dollars for participating, and fifty cents for carf be, for the one hour of participation. From this ad, he did not get enough of a response so Dr.Milgram alikek names from a address directory, and send fliers in the mail. The experiment it self was performed in the interaction Laboratory of Yale University. It consisted of dickens people who were aw atomic subjugate 18 of what was happening, one called the â€Å"experimenter,” the person in charge of managing the experiment, and some other called, â€Å"the dupe. ” A third, was one other person involved with the experiment called the â€Å" credulous subject” who was the one being tested in this experiment. The experiment called for two various perspectives, which were what the â€Å" childlike subject” believed to be happening, and what was really happening.The experiment was set up so that according to the â€Å"naive subject,” â€Å"the victim” was told to memorize a list of discourse dyads such(prenominal)(prenominal) as: blue box nice day wild duck etc. then in the testing sequence he [the naive subject] would use up: blue: sky ink box lamp ( deference 18). If â€Å"the victim” was able to select the correct corresponding word, the â€Å"naive subject” continued by saying the adjoining word. However, if â€Å"the victim” did not answer correctly, or took too long in answering, the â€Å"naive subject” would nonplus to administer a shock.After each wrong answer, the close wrong answer would result in a stronger shock. The beginning, which was to administer the shocks to â€Å"the victim”: Ranged from 15 to 450 volts. The labels showed a 15-volt increment from one switch to the next, firing from left to right. In addition, the companying verba l designations were clearly indicated for groups of four switches, going from left to right: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, watertight Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme fervor Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. Two switches by and by this last designation were simply marked XXX. (Obedience 20)The authenticity of the generator was validated by braggart(a) the â€Å"naive subject” a 45 volt shock to the wrist. The test which the â€Å"naive subject” thought was a test for memory, was in reality to test a person’s allow foringness to follow power. Therefore, as the voltage was to increase, on that point were acted protests by â€Å"the victim” which made the â€Å"naive subject” less willing to continue. However, if the â€Å"naive subject” was having second thoughts near continuing, the â€Å"experimenter” was to give â€Å"prods” each to a greater extent aggressive as the â€Å"naive subject” continued to protest, poke at 1: Please continue, or, Please go on.Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue. Prod 3: It is suddenly essential that you continue. Prod 4: You book no other excerpt you must go on (Obedience 21). Feeling compel even though â€Å"the victim” responded with cries of pain and at long last no answer, the majority of those did continue. The results of this experiment were interesting. In the first-string experiment 26 out of 40 people continued to shock a person with what he or she believed to be 450 volts for an incorrect answer, or if they did not respond within a time jump set by the â€Å"experimenter. Another diversity of this experiment he performed in which he: placed the pupil closer to the instructor, including one in which the teacher actually had to force the bookman’s hand onto a shock plate in arrangement to revenge him; about 30 percent of subjects continued the variation until the end (Fermaglich 86). There was other v ariation which used only women. The results were the same as those for men. Over trine years, Dr. Milgram performed 24 different variations of his original experiment, and tested over 1,000 people. There was also one case in which Dr.Milgram videotaped a subject’s obedience, â€Å"In the wax version of Milgram’s film Prozi [the subject] is shown ending up being completely obedient- that is, administering a 450-volt shock to the spiritual world learner” (Blass). Another result of this experiment was the experiment had a huge impact on those who were the subjects. It resulted in last levels of stress in those who were subjects, whether they obeyed or declineed, which Dr. Milgram himself admitted to happening, and so he had to provide a meeting for the subject and the learner, in order to try to alleviate that stress (Fermaglich 87).Although the experiment was performed many times, and on many different people, this proved that the majority will follow orders when they are condition, even if it goes against their conscience. These were not the only results from this experiment; people had other thoughts about Dr. Milgram’s experiment. There bring on been many who have wondered why a man would perform a test that many people consider to be a violation of a person’s basic rights. Dr. Milgram had many reasons shag performed these experiments. Dr. Milgram believed â€Å"When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will ind more than hideous crimes have been affiliated in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion” (Obedience 2). He cute to be able to prove his belief that the â€Å"answer to destructive obedience lay less in the power of genius and more in the power of situation” (Slater 31). He also performed it with relation to the Holocaust, and since Milgram, â€Å"a Jewish man whose relatives had hidden from the Nazis and been interned in slow-wittedness camps, [he] constructed his experiments in order to understand Nazi nefariousness” (Fermaglich 84).Another idea posed as a reason for Dr. Milgram’s performance was the thought of â€Å"self-other bias (Brown, 1986) [which] is the global tendency for people to rate themselves as better than ‘typical others’” (Geher, Bauman, Hubbard, and Legare 3). There were those who believed the experiment to be unethical, and others who appear to be enlightened with a sense of self realization. One person free-base Dr. Milgram’s experiment to give him a better sense of who he was: I felt a shock of recognition, and the speedy knowledge that I could do such a thing, unsteady as I am.And I knew I could do such a thing, not because some strange set of circumstances propelled me to, no…It was not external. It was internal (Slater 62) However most other people who did not participate in the experiment did not feel this way, they felt this experiment wa s â€Å"the subject of large controversy, centered on the contention that his research subjects had been unethically manipulated, without due regard for their rights or emotional eudaemonia” (Schwartz). In the field of psychology there was an uproar, with those who found the experiment to be reprehensible.One of those people was Diana Baumrind who questioned the obedience experiment, with rival for the welfare of the subjects, and curiosity over measures regardn to encourage those involved and voiced her concerns in American Psychologist (Individual 140). Dr. Baumrind’s phrase concerning the experiment resulted in the revision of APA ethical guidelines, which went with those laid down by the federal government, which especial(a) the use of humans as subjects in the medical and psychological field (Fermaglich 103). Many found what Dr.Milgram did to be unethical, however because of it people now have a better understanding of what they are able to do, and they are able to apply his purposes to other situations that have occurred, and may happen in the future. This experiment may be applied to a multitude of different subjects that are in a person’s any day life. The major subject would be the Nazis during globe War II, which was a motive for Dr. Milgram to do the experiment in the beginning. It explores why a citizen who â€Å"ran the death camps seemed to be ordinary â€Å"decent” citizens, with consciences no different from those of any of us” (Velasquez et al). Dr.Milgram also compares the defeating of Jews in the shoot a line chambers to the manufacturing of appliances, and he says all of those deaths could not have occurred if a large number of people did not obey orders (Obedience 1). The ideas that Dr. Milgram came up with were applied as an report for â€Å"the massacre of hundreds of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai and the criminal activities in Nixon’s White House: ‘Stanley Milgram… dem onstrated in the lab what Lt. William Calley and his unit would dramatize later in Mylai- that man’s behavior is almost perpetually dominated by potential rather than by his own morality’” (Fermaglich 111).This idea is also exemplified on television, as on a recent end of â€Å"Law and Order: S. V. U. ” viewers encounter a manager of a fast food eating house who blatantly obeys the orders of a voice over the environ saying that he is â€Å" investigator Milgram. ” The manager is told that an employee take the wallet of a customer, and â€Å"Detective Milgram” tells the manager to pillage the girl of all of her clothing except for her apron, and to perform a cavity search, to look for the wallet.Later in the result we encounter the man who posed as â€Å"Detective Milgram” who performed his own variation of the experiment, because he had been like the manager, when he allowed the doctor to go against his advice, which resulted in the death of his wife. During school, a person may be faced with a similar situation. One being seeing a person cheat on a test. The person is put in a situation with two choices, neither desirable. The person may tell the teacher, which results in anger from the person who was told on, as well as a loss of time for that person to take their own test.The other option is to do nothing, which in the long run will hurt the school-age child as he or she never learned the material, as he or she was suppose to. typically a student will choose the latter, and do by the situation, which ends up ache the other student. This examination can be viewed on a vast number of levels, but that does not change the facts and ideas behind what happened. Dr. Milgram performed a venture which is thought to have been unethical, as he tested a person’s willingness to follow orders and do as he or she was told.He observe the majority would actually do so, even if they believed they were hurti ng an innocent person. The controversial research has had a conformation of impacts on ein truth different person. For some they have a self realization, thinking of why type of person he or she is and if they are sheep, blindly following ascendance. Works Cited for Research Paper: Blass, Thomasm. â€Å"The Milgram Obedience Experiment: Support for a Cognitive outlook of Defensive Attribution. ” The daybook of Social Psychology (1996). library. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. . Fermaglich, Kirsten. American Dreams and Nazi Nightmares : Early Holocaust understanding and Liberal America, 1957-1965. Waltham, Mass. : Brandeis University Press, 2006. Geher, Glenn, Kathleen P. Bauman, Sara Elizabeth Kay Hubbard, and Jared Richard Legare. â€Å"Self and Other Obedience Estimates: Biases and Moderators. ” The Journal of Social Psychology 142. 6 (2002): 677. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper Perennial, 1974.Milgram, Stanley. The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1977. Schwartz, Earl. â€Å"Why any(prenominal) Ask Why. ” Judaism 53. 3/4 (2004): 230. elibrary. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. Slater, Lauren. open Skinners Box: Great Psychological Experiments of the Twentieth Century. New York: W. W. Norton, 2004. Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, S. J. , and Michael J. Meyer. â€Å"Conscience and Authority. ” Santa Clara University. 12/03/2009 .\r\nThe Milgram Experiment\r\nStanley Milgram: ‘electric shock experiments (1963) †also showed the power of the situation in influencing behaviour. 65% of people could be tardily induced into giving a stranger an electric shock of 450V (enough to kill someone). 100% of people could be influenced into giving a 275V shock. The Milgram Experiment Stanley Milgram (1963) Experiment: Focusing on the contravention between obedience to authority and personal conscience. wonder: Whether Ger mans were particularly obedient to authority images as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.Milgram selected participants for his experiment by advertising for antheral participants to take part in a study of larn at Yale University. The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. The draw was fixed so that the participant was perpetually the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s colleagues (pretending to be a real participant). The learner (a confederate called Mr.Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX). Milgrams Experiment Aim: Milgram (1963) was intere sted in researching how far people would go in obeying an guidance if it involved harming another person. Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities for mannikin, Germans in WWII. surgical operation:Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating â€Å"learning” (ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, (bias: tout ensemble male) whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. At the beginning of the experiment they were introduced to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram). They drew straws to root their roles †leaner or teacher †although this was fixed and the confederate always ended to the learner. There was also an â€Å"experimenter” dolled up in a white lab coat, vie by an actor (not Milgram). The â€Å"learner” (Mr.Wallace) was strapped to a tone down in another room with electrodes. Af ter he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the â€Å"teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices. The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger †severe shock). The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose) and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock.When the teacher refused to administer a shock and rancid to the experimenter for guidance, he was given the standard inculcateion /order (consisting of 4 prods): Prod 1: please continue. Prod 2: the experiment requires you to continue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4: you have no other choice but to continue. Results: 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i. e. teachers) continued to the highest lev el of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment †he carried out 18 variations of his study.All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this impact obedience (DV). Conclusion: Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up. Obey parents, teachers, anyone in authority etc. Milgram summed up in the article â€Å"The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), writing: â€Å"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people represent in concrete situations.I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [parti cipants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Factors change Obedience The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram varied the basic procedure (changed the IV). By doing this Milgram could advert which factors affected obedience (the DV). Status of Location| individualised Responsibility| * The orders were given in an important status (Yale University) †when Milgram’s study was conducted in a check up on office in the city, obedience levels dropped. * This suggests that prestige increases obedience. | *  When there is less personal responsibility obedience increases. When participants could instruct an as sistant to press the switches, 95% (compared to 65% in the original study) shocked to the maximum 450 volts. * This relates to Milgrams Agency Theory. | authenticity of Authority conception| Status of Authority Figure| * People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and / or legally based. * This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school and workplace. | *  Milgram’s experimenter wore a laboratory coat (a symbol of scientific expertise) which gave him a high status. But when the experimenter dressed in day-after-day array obedience was very low. * The uniform of the authority figure can give them status. | Peer Support| propinquity of Authority Figure| * Peer support †if a person has the social support of their friend(s) then obedience is less likely. * Also the presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of o bedience. This happened in Milgram’s experiment when there was a â€Å"disobedient impersonate”. | *  Authority figure distant: It is easier to resist the orders from an authority figure if they are not close by.When the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience flee to 20. 5%. * When the authority figure is close by then obedience is more likely. | Methodological Issues The Milgram studies were conducted in laboratory type conditions and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situations. We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more knowing than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience.The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more conform to to a military context. Milgrams sample was biased: The participants in Milgrams study were all male. Do the findings transfer to females? In Milgrams study the participants were a self-selecting sample. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves). They may also have a typical â€Å"volunteer personality” †not all the newspaper readers responded so perchance it takes this personality type to do so.Finally, they probably all had a similar income since they were willing to spend some hours working for a given amount of money. honest Issues *  Deception â€ the participants actually believed they were shocking a real person, and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgrams *   protective cover of participants â€ Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. * However, Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.\r\n'