Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, shares his results from an experiment he conducted in regards to obedience of authority in 1963 in, “The Perils of Obedience.” His experiment illustrated that when put under particular circumstances, ordinary citizens have the capability to perform terrible and unexpected actions (Milgram 85). Milgram rationalizes these proceedings through the conclusion that the average individual will decide to please the experimenter rather than resist his authority to protect the wellbeing of the learner (Milgram 86). Diana Baumrind, a psychologist who worked at the Institute of Human Development at the University of California, writes in response to Milgram’s experiment “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments
…show more content…
This Code of Conduct established by the American Psychological Association effectively supports Baumrind by articulating how psychologists should aspire to create trusting relations with people whom they work (“Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct”). Milgram might refute these criticisms by claiming the subjects could trust the experimenter on the basis that he, the experimenter, was accountable for any harm caused by the subject. Milgram mentions this detail numerous times throughout his narratives of the experiment in “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 81, 83). In response to Milgram’s refute, Baumrind would likely debate how Milgram deceived his subjects about the purpose of the experiment. Milgram compelled his subjects to believe that they were not the focal point of the experiment but rather a supplementary aspect (Milgram 78). Baumrind would return to the Ethical Standards of Psychologists where it declares that, “Where the danger of serious aftereffects exists, research should be conducted only when the subjects… are fully informed of this possibility and volunteer …show more content…
The first flaw Baumrind finds in Milgram’s experiment is the fact that the subjects are in an unfamiliar setting in the laboratory; therefore, the subjects are more likely to be anxious. She believes that the laboratory is not an ideal location to study obedience because the subject is expected to be more obedient due to this anxiety (Baumrind 90). Milgram would likely refute this fault by reasoning that the subject can be expected to be just as anxious in a laboratory as in a real life situation where someone else’s well-being is also a matter of circumstance. He may refer to Eichmann’s subordinates during the Holocaust: they could have been just as uneasy about killing hundreds of Jews as the subjects were about shocking the learner in the experiment (Milgram 89). However, Baumrind could stress the fact that the experiment in itself was not a real life situation. Saul McLeod, a psychology tutor at the University of Manchester, would agree with Baumrind: In his article “The Milgram Experiment” he views the authority that the subjects would face in real life to be much more subtle and that the situation Milgram used is more applicable to the military than everyday life circumstances (McLeod). If this is correct, then Milgram’s reference to Eichmann in the German
This Code of Conduct established by the American Psychological Association effectively supports Baumrind by articulating how psychologists should aspire to create trusting relations with people whom they work (“Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct”). Milgram might refute these criticisms by claiming the subjects could trust the experimenter on the basis that he, the experimenter, was accountable for any harm caused by the subject. Milgram mentions this detail numerous times throughout his narratives of the experiment in “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 81, 83). In response to Milgram’s refute, Baumrind would likely debate how Milgram deceived his subjects about the purpose of the experiment. Milgram compelled his subjects to believe that they were not the focal point of the experiment but rather a supplementary aspect (Milgram 78). Baumrind would return to the Ethical Standards of Psychologists where it declares that, “Where the danger of serious aftereffects exists, research should be conducted only when the subjects… are fully informed of this possibility and volunteer …show more content…
The first flaw Baumrind finds in Milgram’s experiment is the fact that the subjects are in an unfamiliar setting in the laboratory; therefore, the subjects are more likely to be anxious. She believes that the laboratory is not an ideal location to study obedience because the subject is expected to be more obedient due to this anxiety (Baumrind 90). Milgram would likely refute this fault by reasoning that the subject can be expected to be just as anxious in a laboratory as in a real life situation where someone else’s well-being is also a matter of circumstance. He may refer to Eichmann’s subordinates during the Holocaust: they could have been just as uneasy about killing hundreds of Jews as the subjects were about shocking the learner in the experiment (Milgram 89). However, Baumrind could stress the fact that the experiment in itself was not a real life situation. Saul McLeod, a psychology tutor at the University of Manchester, would agree with Baumrind: In his article “The Milgram Experiment” he views the authority that the subjects would face in real life to be much more subtle and that the situation Milgram used is more applicable to the military than everyday life circumstances (McLeod). If this is correct, then Milgram’s reference to Eichmann in the German