Register to read the introduction…
Because the experiment takes place in a laboratory, Baumrind argues that participants will not act how they might in the real world. She states that the laboratory is an unaccustomed setting for a typical being and may cause anxiety and passivity (225). Correspondingly, Saul Mcleod, a psychologist who summarizes and critiques Milgram’s experiment, states that the “important” location of the experiment, obedience levels increased (Simply Psychology). The point about setting is one in which Baumrind and Parker are able to reach a consensus. Parker, along with Baumrind, believes the setting of the experiment could drastically alter how the participants react during the experiment. He says “people tend to do things because of where they are, not who they are…” (238). Parker also points out that the participants had no chance for an escape. He cites a psychologist, named Richard Nisbett, who says “there was really no exit, there was no channel for disobedience” (238). This concludes that the experiment may be manipulated therefore the participant has to obey his or her
…show more content…
The chief differentiation between his experiment and the Holocaust, she says, is the participants in the experiment displayed some form of sympathy toward the victims. However, Baumrind does not display any support to her claims; her statement would hold more validity if she would include more details and, possibly, examples of how the experiment and the Holocaust differ. Similarly, Parker refers to author Daniel Goldhagen who wrote Hitler’s Willing Executioners. In his book, Goldhagen discusses “how the crimes of the Holocaust were carried out by people obeying their own consciences, not blindly or fearfully obeying orders” (237). Parker also illustrates a theory as to why Milgram compared his experiment to the Holocaust. He points out that Milgram’s results were not published or well-known until he established the connection between the Holocaust and his experiment. It is evident that Parker believes Milgram does this simply to gain popularity for his
The chief differentiation between his experiment and the Holocaust, she says, is the participants in the experiment displayed some form of sympathy toward the victims. However, Baumrind does not display any support to her claims; her statement would hold more validity if she would include more details and, possibly, examples of how the experiment and the Holocaust differ. Similarly, Parker refers to author Daniel Goldhagen who wrote Hitler’s Willing Executioners. In his book, Goldhagen discusses “how the crimes of the Holocaust were carried out by people obeying their own consciences, not blindly or fearfully obeying orders” (237). Parker also illustrates a theory as to why Milgram compared his experiment to the Holocaust. He points out that Milgram’s results were not published or well-known until he established the connection between the Holocaust and his experiment. It is evident that Parker believes Milgram does this simply to gain popularity for his