Stanley Milgram's Analysis

In 1963, an experiment was conducted by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, who studied the conflict with obedience, authority, and the conscience of a human being. In the experiment, Milgram designed a false scenario, in which one person would volunteer to be the “teacher” and the other person would be the “student” (who would be the actor). The teacher would read a list of word pairs and test the student’s memory. Afterwards, the teacher would say the first word of the word pair and the student would have to answer the second word of the word pair through memorization. However, if the student would get it wrong, then the teacher would shock the student. However, throughout the whole experiment, the student is acting. The teacher does not know …show more content…
However, Parker observes Milgram’s experiments through different lenses. In Parker’s article, he explores the beginning of the experiment and how Milgram failed to have it published the first time. Edward E. Jones, editor of the Journal of Personality, said, “Milgram failed to include certain variables in his article about his experiment (Parker 96). Parker finds the experiment inconsistent, believing that perhaps the experiment was a mistake from the beginning. Parker explained that “the experimental control in Milgram’s model is our hopelessly flawed intuition.”
Furthermore, Baumrind finds the experiments “harmful” to the subjects and that the subjects’ “self image or ability to trust adult authorities in the future” was damaged. She accuses Milgram of not taking and using preliminary psychological profiling and clinical training in order to insure the mental safety of the subject and furthermore. She claims that instead Milgram used trickery, the trust of the subjects, and the actors faking torture--traumatizing his subjects (Baumrind 90). Baumrind points out that Milgram violated the Ethical Standards of Psychologists, which reads that subjects should not be exposed to emotional stress …show more content…
In that way, Baumrind suggests that Milgram is the one who is indirectly shocking the subjects. However, Baumrind gives no proof or evidence supporting this assertion that the subjects were indeed harm (90). She includes his quote about how the “subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and find their fingernails into their flesh.” Despite this being a vivid picture of obvious distress, Baumrind forgets to include how this affected them in the future (91). Moreover, Parker agrees with the idea that Milgram harmed his subjects. Parker mentions Herbert Winter, who was one of the subjects in Milgram 's experiments. Winter claimed to suffer a mild heart attack since the experiments. Unlike Baumrind, Parker included what happened to a subject after the experiment to expand on his assertion that Milgram may have perhaps harmed his clients (Parker