In his article "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram describes what, in his opinion, was an ethical experiment performed at Yale University designed to test how ordinary people respond to authority figures' direct orders, even if the orders violate the test subjects' conscience. In order to prevent psychological damage, Milgram's test subjects were reconciled with their victims after the experiment was terminated; he also claims there was an attempt to reduce tensions that resulted from the experiment (Baumrind 92). Overall, Milgram's findings led him to believe that people struggle to resist orders from authority figures for fear of disappointing said figure, and that a person will assume responsibility for their actions so long as they
…show more content…
According to the questionnaire Milgram sent to the participants, 84% said they were pleased that they had participated in the experiment, roughly 15% were neither pleased nor regretful, and approximately 1% of participants regretted their involvement (Baumrind 95). With these results, Milgram would also likely refute Baumrind’s claims by retorting that either the experiment was not emotionally damaging in the first place, or that the reconciliation he arranged between the participant and actor was sufficient to alleviate the emotional damage. Based on his article “Experimental Ethics,” Ph.D. Alan C. Elms would agree with Milgram, and claims the additional measures Milgram took to ensure the participants’ welfare were unprecedented in most other psychological experiments: Milgram arranged for a psychiatrist to meet with the participants a year later, and no signs of harm were reported (Elms). If Baumrind’s claim that Milgram’s efforts to alleviate emotional damage were not sufficient, then the survey Milgram sent to participants would reveal that a significantly larger percentage of participants regretted their involvement; however, the results prove otherwise, rendering Baumrind’s argument invalid and therefore ineffective while Milgram’s claims are effective with Elms and the survey results supporting his …show more content…
In essence, Milgram believes his experiment proves that people tend to obey authority figures more often than not, regardless of the setting. Psychologist Saul McLeod would likely agree with Milgram: in his article “The Milgram Experiment,” McLeod notes that Milgram’s experiment has been replicated in a variety of cultures and locations, with all of the results proving similar to Milgram’s (McLeod). Baumrind would fairly challenge Milgram and McLeod’s claims, citing the results of the location change as evidence that the laboratory likely altered Milgram’s findings. If what Milgram claims is true, then changing the location of the experiment would have minimal if any effect on the results; however, the drastic decrease in obedience disproves his claim, causing him to be ineffective. On the contrary, if what Baumrind claims is true, then performing the experiment outside of a laboratory setting would substantially lower the obedience rate. Both Sparks and Milgram’s results support this claim, rendering Baumrind’s claim both logical and
According to the questionnaire Milgram sent to the participants, 84% said they were pleased that they had participated in the experiment, roughly 15% were neither pleased nor regretful, and approximately 1% of participants regretted their involvement (Baumrind 95). With these results, Milgram would also likely refute Baumrind’s claims by retorting that either the experiment was not emotionally damaging in the first place, or that the reconciliation he arranged between the participant and actor was sufficient to alleviate the emotional damage. Based on his article “Experimental Ethics,” Ph.D. Alan C. Elms would agree with Milgram, and claims the additional measures Milgram took to ensure the participants’ welfare were unprecedented in most other psychological experiments: Milgram arranged for a psychiatrist to meet with the participants a year later, and no signs of harm were reported (Elms). If Baumrind’s claim that Milgram’s efforts to alleviate emotional damage were not sufficient, then the survey Milgram sent to participants would reveal that a significantly larger percentage of participants regretted their involvement; however, the results prove otherwise, rendering Baumrind’s argument invalid and therefore ineffective while Milgram’s claims are effective with Elms and the survey results supporting his …show more content…
In essence, Milgram believes his experiment proves that people tend to obey authority figures more often than not, regardless of the setting. Psychologist Saul McLeod would likely agree with Milgram: in his article “The Milgram Experiment,” McLeod notes that Milgram’s experiment has been replicated in a variety of cultures and locations, with all of the results proving similar to Milgram’s (McLeod). Baumrind would fairly challenge Milgram and McLeod’s claims, citing the results of the location change as evidence that the laboratory likely altered Milgram’s findings. If what Milgram claims is true, then changing the location of the experiment would have minimal if any effect on the results; however, the drastic decrease in obedience disproves his claim, causing him to be ineffective. On the contrary, if what Baumrind claims is true, then performing the experiment outside of a laboratory setting would substantially lower the obedience rate. Both Sparks and Milgram’s results support this claim, rendering Baumrind’s claim both logical and