Authority has become a powerful force that can easily alter one’s perspective of others. In the article “The Perils of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram shares his experimental study where he sets out to prove that ordinary people perform unethical tasks to the public eye. The people in the experiment are told to say aloud different words, and the learner then has to memorize and repeat them back. If the learner fails to recite the words correctly the subjects deliver a level of shock. The learner is secretively an actor who is not actually receiving shocks at all, but pretends to be in pain for the purpose of the experiment. The subjects continue to follow the authority of the experimenter even when given the chance for the experiment to end. Philip
…show more content…
The subjects in Milgram’s experiment validate that this same pressure Maiese writes of, is strong enough to cause them to increase the voltage of shock even though it is against their morals. Mr. Braverman, a subject in the experiment, affirms this concept by stating “My reactions were giggly, and trying to stifle laughter. This was a sheer reaction to a totally impossible situation” (84). His statement proves that he had been dehumanizing a subject as if it were simply a joking matter. He has trust in the experimenter’s authority and builds the experiment to be enjoyable for himself forgetting about the pain he is exerting onto the learner. Lankford the author of “Victims’ Dehumanization and the Alteration of Other-Oriented Empathy within the Immersive Video Milgram Obedience Experiment”, would agree with the motives leading to the actions of Braverman. Lankford would uphold that the process of dehumanizing the learner constructs destructive disobedience by impairing the individual preforming the action and their ability to process the amount of pain and distress the victim faces. Milgram would also …show more content…
Both experimenters set up questionnaires for the subjects to maximize their understanding of these effects. In representation of this, Diana Baumrind’s article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”, shares the element of Milgram’s questionnaire where he had asked if the subject was glad or sorry to be a character of the experiment (95). However, Milgram had explained that he did not offer mental support to the subject to grasp the idea of what had happened. He had decided to take full responsibility for the execution of the study. On the other hand, Zimbardo handles it differently by supporting the subjects in his experiment after its conclusion. Conveying year-long follow ups with questionnaires, personal interviews, and group reunions, Zimbardo ensures that mental anguish was transient and the self-knowledge gained was persisted (117). As stated by, McLeod in “Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment”, he explains how Zimbardo held “extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects, and he strongly argues that the benefits gained about our understanding of human behavior and how we can improve
The subjects in Milgram’s experiment validate that this same pressure Maiese writes of, is strong enough to cause them to increase the voltage of shock even though it is against their morals. Mr. Braverman, a subject in the experiment, affirms this concept by stating “My reactions were giggly, and trying to stifle laughter. This was a sheer reaction to a totally impossible situation” (84). His statement proves that he had been dehumanizing a subject as if it were simply a joking matter. He has trust in the experimenter’s authority and builds the experiment to be enjoyable for himself forgetting about the pain he is exerting onto the learner. Lankford the author of “Victims’ Dehumanization and the Alteration of Other-Oriented Empathy within the Immersive Video Milgram Obedience Experiment”, would agree with the motives leading to the actions of Braverman. Lankford would uphold that the process of dehumanizing the learner constructs destructive disobedience by impairing the individual preforming the action and their ability to process the amount of pain and distress the victim faces. Milgram would also …show more content…
Both experimenters set up questionnaires for the subjects to maximize their understanding of these effects. In representation of this, Diana Baumrind’s article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”, shares the element of Milgram’s questionnaire where he had asked if the subject was glad or sorry to be a character of the experiment (95). However, Milgram had explained that he did not offer mental support to the subject to grasp the idea of what had happened. He had decided to take full responsibility for the execution of the study. On the other hand, Zimbardo handles it differently by supporting the subjects in his experiment after its conclusion. Conveying year-long follow ups with questionnaires, personal interviews, and group reunions, Zimbardo ensures that mental anguish was transient and the self-knowledge gained was persisted (117). As stated by, McLeod in “Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment”, he explains how Zimbardo held “extensive group and individual debriefing sessions were held and all participants returned post-experimental questionnaires several weeks, then several months later, then at yearly intervals. Zimbardo concluded there were no lasting negative effects, and he strongly argues that the benefits gained about our understanding of human behavior and how we can improve