Some critics say that the results show more about the historical and cultural climate of the USA at the time -when McCarthyism was at large and people feared being accused of being communist spies- than fundamental psychological principles. The study was conducted when obedience was seen as a good thing and this may be why many of the participants went along with what the experimenter told them to do. This is a weakness as it means the study may not be showing actual reasons for obedience, such as legitimate authority. Another example is the agentic state theory. When in the agentic state, people are more likely to ober, as they become the ‘agent’ of another person’s wishes and therefore enter a different state of mind
What we don’t know before Milgrams experiment’s is just how powerful the tendency is. And having been enlightened about our extreme readiness to obey authorities, we can try to take steps to guard ourselves against unwelcome or reprehensible command’(p.73)”’. This just shows that people don’t realize the effect of obedience from people from a higher authority. With Milgrams experiment there were many problems, consisting of the biases parts like the environment. The laboratory was an unfamiliar environment for the participants, and they may have felt embarrassed.
Most of the subjects discovered they were more likey to obey authority figures than they might have expected and most went through a type of self-discovery. Even though they found something new about themselves, Baumrind suspects that not all of the subjects wanted this self-discovery because they all probably felt guilty after they found out they would obey an authority figure to the point of harming another person. According to Baumrind, the setting is another reason Milgram’s experiment was flawed. She says that because the experiment was done in a laboratory, the subjects were more prone to obey the experimenter than if they would have been elsewhere (Baumrind 330). Baumrind was also concerned with the subjects and how they were after the experiment.
However, some results may be invalidated by the participants knowing either the true aim of the study or the fact that they are being studied at all. If the participant was to know the true nature of the study, they may adapt their behaviour in order to fit in (socially desirable) or they may act in a way that they think the researcher is expecting (demand characteristics). For example, in Milgram's electric shock experiment, it is highly likely that more participants would have delivered the higher shocks to the 'learner' if they had known the reality of the entire study. This makes the participants actions and behaviour unnatural and could invalidate the data completely. When considering this issue, sociologists should also consider that participants should also be offered the right to refuse.
After the study had concluded the subjects were de-briefed and told the true nature of the experiment. They met with the learner so they could see he was fine and had come to no harm however this did not take into account the psychological stress caused during the experiment when they had been led to believe they had killed someone by giving them 450 volt shock. During the study Milgram did take into account some ethnical implications, however by deceiving and encouraging the participants to continue despite the consequences was not ethical and the study should not have been allowed to continue. He was unable to determine the mental state of the participants as the information given at the start of the study by the
In a Deontology perspective this would be immoral because the player has violated the rules and standards of their contract. People want to follow rules to make moral decisions, but the reward may out way the consequence. Consequentialism is when a decision is made if the oneself feels that the action out ways the consequence. An athlete would think performing at the max for a year and getting the fame would be more important rather than the consequence; it could be the other way around also. When a player takes steroids he or she would rather take the risk for strength and skills, rather than worrying about future consequences.
“Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior (Penslar, Robin, L., 1995). The fact that this ethical theory does not consider a person’s change in moral character; it is one of its weaknesses. Utilitarianism is more concerned with the good for all. “According to this theory an individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater population.” (2013) Utilitarianism, in terms of ethics, is an individual trying to make a positive change for a larger group, and morally would guide themselves in decision in regard to the group they are associated with or belong to. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism which a person performs the acts that benefit most of the people regardless to a person’s feeling or the laws, and rule utilitarianism which takes the law
In Stanley Milgram’s experiments, people torn between obeying an experimenter and responding to another’s pleas to stop the shocks usually chose to obey orders, even though obedience supposedly meant harming the other person. People were most likely to obey when the person giving orders was nearby and was perceived as a legitimate authority figure; when the person giving orders was supported by a prestigious institution; when the victim was depersonalized or at a distance; and when no other person modeled defiance by
Proving people wrong in this fashion is not the best strategy for persuading people who are opposed to your point of view. What he does next, however, is just plain brilliant. He asks the jurors to take an anonymous vote and if no one supports him he will comply with the others’ decision. Solomon Asch’s experiment on compliance showed that people in small groups are more likely to express unpopular opinions if they have the support of at least one other individual or if they can express their opinions anonymously. In a suspenseful counting of these new votes it turns out that it worked.
51. I understand that many researchers think the use of deception in research is necessary because human subjects are sensitive to how others perceive them and how they perceive themselves to be. These researchers believe that this self- consciousness will lead to inaccurate research results. I, however, do not think that researchers should ever use deception when conducting research with humans simply because it is unethical. When intentionally deceiving any participant, you risk harming them because the integrity of the informed consent process is jeopardized.