Social Psychological Experiments Essay -- Social Issues, Authority

Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist, conducted an look into in 1963 about human obedience that was deemed as one of the nigh controversial social psychology samples ever (Blass). Ian Parker, a writer for the current Yorker and Human Sciences, and Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, responded to Stanley Milgrams experiment. These articles represent how the scientific residential area reviews and scrutinizes each others work to authenticate experiment results. Baumrind focuses on the moral and ethical dilemma while, Parker focuses more on the experiments actual application. The experiments original intent was to determine if high society would simply obey to authority when put under pressure by an authoritative figure. Milgram put a twist on the experiment enquire the age-old question of, if the Germans during WWII were simply obeying to authority when carrying out the Holocaust or were they alone acting on their own(Blass). The test su bject, or instructor, would cope electric shocks to the assimilator, a paid actor, when the learner incorrectly answered the word pairings. The teacher thought the learner was receiving electric shocks when in reality the learner was non receiving any shocks. An instructor, the authoritative figure, was sitting behind the teacher reassuring the teacher that the shocks whitethorn be painful but would not inflict immutable damage. Throughout the experiment, the teacher can be seen looking back towards the instructor for permission on whether to continue or stop (ABC).The teacher instructed the learner to continue even when the learner cried out in pain and begged for the experiment to stop (ABC). Sixty-five percent of the time, the teacher continued until he administered the ... ... Baumrinds idea that if Milgram were to fully disclose the experiment would it still produces the same results as the original experiment? Milgram does arrange for a friendly meeting amidst the tea cher and the learner after the experiment. The meeting was supposed to relieve alone tensions that are burdened upon the teacher throughout the experiment. Baumrind does not believe that this innocent meeting between the teacher and learner was enough to relieve all tensions of the experiment (227). She simply suggests that Milgram should have offered a psychiatric evaluation or therapy to the patients after participating in the experiment (227). The ethical treatment that Milgram showed towards his patients denied him his APA membership. The ethical furor preyed on Milgrams mind in the opinion of Arthur G. Miller, it may have contributed to his premature death(234).