The experimenter explained that the learner would be asked a series of questions and if he answers incorrectly, the teacher will administer an electric shock. Gretchen Brandt is the first of several subjects to undergo the experiment, and her reaction the learner’s pain was similar to what was predicted before the study began. She remained calm, composed, and was firm in her decision to disobey the experimenters orders. According to Milgram, this was the reaction he expected from almost all the participants. He collected predictions about the outcome of the experiments from a diverse group of people and most predicted that the subjects would not be obedient, but they were wrong.
What the teacher did not know was that the learner was not actually receiving these shocks, and it was just a recording of the reactions made by the learner, such as shouts and screams. The objective of the experiment was to see how far and long the teacher would repeatedly shock the learner before completely refusing to keep asking questions. The only question that remains is this: Was this experiment ethical? The experiment was ethical, and for many reasons. The participants all
They would not be able to pass the bar exam, even if they had gotten all the other questions right, when losing the 40 minutes. Both men asked for an exception to the rule because of what happened. The supervisor and the State Bar executiveboth stuck to their rules and would not budge. Now, anyone who hears this story automatically starts thinking, what were those two men thinking that would not allow the two students 40 more minutes to take the test. They helped save someone's life and in return got no consideration for understanding whatsoever from the state bar administration.
Throughout the experiment, the teacher can be seen looking back towards the instructor for permission on whether to continue or stop .The teacher instructed the learner to continue even when the learner cried out in pain and begged for the experiment to stop. Sixty-five percent of the time, the teacher continued until he administered the highest shock. This experiment proves that when under the right circumstances society will obey authority. Baumrind thinks of Milgram’s experiment as more of a ‘game’ than an actual scientific experiment (Baumrind 225). She claims that Milgram left no alternative ‘out’ for the subject (226).
With each action is the thought " I'll do this for you, if you do something for me in return." This idea may scare people because with all of the other commitments they have, they don't want to add in any favors they must do for others. The article in the Wichita Eagle says almost the opposite of the teens and young adults in the communities today. The survey was done on 1,700 students nationwide, and the results were amazingly contradictory to the theories Putnam provides on the issue. Over 36% of teens surveyed had volunteered in their community, which is the exact opposite of reciprocity.
Optimistic attitude A person is hopeful and confident about the work he’s performing. Example: Always put smile on the face and praise other team members when they did a good job. Think outside the box and be creative. Humble A person is modest to the complimentary from others and passion for their work. Example: Never exaggerate your contribution to the team.
If the learner is unable to repeat the word groups back to the teacher correctly the teacher is required to shock the learner. The shocks that the teacher administers vary in range from 15 volts to 450 volts. The experimenter will inform the teacher that they need to continue the experiment, if the teacher balks at shocking the learner. The experiment ends when the teacher either quits the experiment or the learner is shocked with 450 volts three times. Surprisingly, the results of Milgram’s experiment proved that when individuals are in a position of following an authority figure’s directive, or their own moral conscience, people will overwhelmingly choose to obey.
The group were asked to indicate and on a signal from the researcher, the confederates would give unanimous wrong answers on 12 of the 18 trials for each experiment. Answers were also always unambiguous so it was clear. Asch found that the overall conformity rate was 37%, and 5% of participants conformed on every trial and 25% never conformed. When asked why they conformed, participants gave a number of reasons: some felt their perceptions were wrong upon hearing different answers from the group, others stated that they believed the rest were wrong but they did not wish to stand out and it was reported that some participants grew increasingly nervous and self-conscious through trials. Asch concluded that a strong, large group can exert intense pressure to conform, even more so if they are unanimous in their opinions.
The “teacher” would receive orders from the “experimenter” to give an electric shock to the “learner” after every question they got incorrect and the “experimenter” would demand the “teacher” to up the voltage after every mistake. The “teacher” could either obey the orders given by the “experimenter”, or refuse to continue in the experiment. In conducting this test, it became evident that people had no trouble obeying a higher authority, particularly when told they would not be held responsible for the fate of the subject. Obedience tends to increase with the prestige of the authority figure. Since the study was done by an undergraduate research assistant posing as a Yale professor, the participants were definitely more willing to comply with the orders they were given because they felt more obligated to impress and seek recognition
In “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram was trying to prove a point that shows how far someone will go to be obedient to the authority. He began this experiment using three subjects: the experimenter, the teacher, and the learner, but only the teacher was clueless about what they were about to partake in. The teacher would read out a series of words, and the learner, who was strapped to an electric chair, was required to remember the words that were associated to each other (215). When asked, if the learner gave the wrong answer, the teacher was required to give them an electric shock of “fifteen to four hundred fifty volts” (215). Although the teacher did not know it, the learner was actually an actor pretending to be in extreme pain when given the electrical shock to persuade the teacher to want to discontinue the experiment (215).