Many people have the idea that during WW1 Nazis killed and tortured many Jews freely and even willingly. What Milgram is doing in his experiment is trying to figure out how easily people follow orders, orders that could harm and potentially kill someone. Milgram got participants through a newspaper article, and paying them $450 to complete the experiment (random sampling). The experiment was carried out in a lab at Yale, causing ecological validity to be good, as it 's a very trustworthy institution and subjects are more likely to abide when in a laboratory compared to a real world setting. He was using a deceiving method by tricking the “teacher” to believe that every time he flipped a set of 30 switches, which were ranged from Slight Shock
…show more content…
She argues that the experiment was affecting the participant even after they were done and had been de-briefed of what the study was actually about, as well as seeing and talking to the ”learner” (the guy who they thought they were electrocuting). Baumrind was also arguing the fact the the experiment had little ecological validity as subjects are more prone to abide in such environments, she also states that participants experienced long-term, negative psychological consequences as a result of their participation in Milgram’s experiment. Milgram had counterpoints for all of her statements, explaining himself and his thought process and why it was necessary towards the experiment. Baumrind says that Milgram 's experimental situations are not sufficiently accurate models of real-life experience, his sampling techniques are seldom of a scope which would justify the meaning with which he would like to endow his result, as well as result are hard to reproduce. These combined is considered unethical, as this experiment would never have been accepted by any institutions today. The main conflict of Milgram 's experience which can be argued for both sides, that really settled the point where the experiment became unethical was the fact that patients could be considered to be psychologically harmed, even though the debriefing and explanations it could still have an effect on patient mind and
She argues that the experiment was affecting the participant even after they were done and had been de-briefed of what the study was actually about, as well as seeing and talking to the ”learner” (the guy who they thought they were electrocuting). Baumrind was also arguing the fact the the experiment had little ecological validity as subjects are more prone to abide in such environments, she also states that participants experienced long-term, negative psychological consequences as a result of their participation in Milgram’s experiment. Milgram had counterpoints for all of her statements, explaining himself and his thought process and why it was necessary towards the experiment. Baumrind says that Milgram 's experimental situations are not sufficiently accurate models of real-life experience, his sampling techniques are seldom of a scope which would justify the meaning with which he would like to endow his result, as well as result are hard to reproduce. These combined is considered unethical, as this experiment would never have been accepted by any institutions today. The main conflict of Milgram 's experience which can be argued for both sides, that really settled the point where the experiment became unethical was the fact that patients could be considered to be psychologically harmed, even though the debriefing and explanations it could still have an effect on patient mind and