Data Organization and Collection
Subjects that refused to continue the experiment prior to administering the highest level were labeled the ‘defiant’ subject. On the other hand, subjects who obeyed the experimenter and administered the highest shock level were labeled the ‘obedient’ subject (Milgram, 1963). As said earlier, to better organize the information, the dependent variable was numerically defined based on how high of a shock value they were able to deliver to the learner (Milgram, 1963). Another way data was collected was through interviews of the subjects that were done after the experiment was completed (Milgram, 1963). Observers were also enlisted to objectively analyze the behavior of the subjects during the experiment (Milgram, …show more content…
Discussion of Flaws
As said earlier, the experimenter was one of the independent variables of this experiment who influenced the dependent variable which was the response of the subject. This meant that the experimenter had a direct influence on the results of the experiment. As a result, this could be identified as experimenter bias if the results of the experiment matched the hypothesis. However, that was not the case with this experiment. Though the experimenter did influence the responses of the subjects, the results didn’t match the hypothesis of the experiment (Milgram, 1963).
The role of the experimenter in the Milgram experiment and their true influence on the responses of the subjects was observed by Jerry M. Burger of Santa Clara University in a recreation of the Milgram experiment (Burger, 2014). Burger (2014) discovered in his own interviews with his subjects that the presence of the experimenter was not very strong and that the experimenter was simply seen as someone who would take responsibility for any of the consequences that resulted from carrying out their orders or as a source of expert …show more content…
The Milgram experiments did harm their subjects mentally as subjects were observed to have been under extreme tension due to their conflict between obeying the experimenter and relieving the pain of the learner. Three subjects in particular had seizures during the experiment. In response, the experiment ended prematurely for only one of these three subjects (Milgram, 1963). This behavior breaches this principle as the experimenters are required to end the experiment if the subject’s safety is jeopardized (Weiten & McCain, 2015/1980). However, at the end of the procedure, efforts were made to comfort subjects and reveal the true purpose of the experiment (Milgram, 1963). Whether these efforts were effective or not, was not revealed in this experiment. While it was still more ideal to have ended the experiment when subjects experienced seizures, Milgram did make an effort to ensure the harm that was inflicted on his subjects was relieved (Milgram,
Subjects that refused to continue the experiment prior to administering the highest level were labeled the ‘defiant’ subject. On the other hand, subjects who obeyed the experimenter and administered the highest shock level were labeled the ‘obedient’ subject (Milgram, 1963). As said earlier, to better organize the information, the dependent variable was numerically defined based on how high of a shock value they were able to deliver to the learner (Milgram, 1963). Another way data was collected was through interviews of the subjects that were done after the experiment was completed (Milgram, 1963). Observers were also enlisted to objectively analyze the behavior of the subjects during the experiment (Milgram, …show more content…
Discussion of Flaws
As said earlier, the experimenter was one of the independent variables of this experiment who influenced the dependent variable which was the response of the subject. This meant that the experimenter had a direct influence on the results of the experiment. As a result, this could be identified as experimenter bias if the results of the experiment matched the hypothesis. However, that was not the case with this experiment. Though the experimenter did influence the responses of the subjects, the results didn’t match the hypothesis of the experiment (Milgram, 1963).
The role of the experimenter in the Milgram experiment and their true influence on the responses of the subjects was observed by Jerry M. Burger of Santa Clara University in a recreation of the Milgram experiment (Burger, 2014). Burger (2014) discovered in his own interviews with his subjects that the presence of the experimenter was not very strong and that the experimenter was simply seen as someone who would take responsibility for any of the consequences that resulted from carrying out their orders or as a source of expert …show more content…
The Milgram experiments did harm their subjects mentally as subjects were observed to have been under extreme tension due to their conflict between obeying the experimenter and relieving the pain of the learner. Three subjects in particular had seizures during the experiment. In response, the experiment ended prematurely for only one of these three subjects (Milgram, 1963). This behavior breaches this principle as the experimenters are required to end the experiment if the subject’s safety is jeopardized (Weiten & McCain, 2015/1980). However, at the end of the procedure, efforts were made to comfort subjects and reveal the true purpose of the experiment (Milgram, 1963). Whether these efforts were effective or not, was not revealed in this experiment. While it was still more ideal to have ended the experiment when subjects experienced seizures, Milgram did make an effort to ensure the harm that was inflicted on his subjects was relieved (Milgram,