Stanley Milgram
What was the conclusion of the Milgram experiment?
Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued until the full 450 volts. He concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders .
What did we learn from the Milgram obedience experiment?
The Milgram experiment, and the replications and related experiments that followed it, showed that contrary to expectations, most people will obey an order given by an authority figure to harm someone , even if they feel that it’s wrong, and even if they want to stop.
What was the result of the Milgram experiment imply?
Participants had up to 10 buttons to press, each a higher “shock” level. The results show that the level of participants’ obedience towards instructions is similarly high to that of the original Milgram studies. They found that 90% of the people were willing to go to the highest level in the experiment.
What was unethical about the Milgram experiment?
The experiment was deemed unethical, because the participants were led to believe that they were administering shocks to real people . The participants were unaware that the learner was an associate of Milgram’s. However, Milgram argued that deception was necessary to produce the desired outcomes of the experiment.
What was Milgram’s hypothesis?
The hypothesis tested in the Milgram experiment was that, under the right circumstances, people would follow the directions of an authority figure to the extent of harming or even killing other people .
What is the major problem with the original Milgram study?
What is a major problem with the original Milgram study? Milgram lied to his respondents, making his study borderline unethical . What is the major flaw in the Asch conformity study? Asch ignored the importance of several factors influencing conformity- race, class, and gender.
What are the four factors that influence obedience according to Milgram?
Factors That Increase Obedience
The experiments were done at a prestigious institution . The authority figure was present in the room with the subject . The learner was in another room . The subject did not see other subjects disobeying commands .
How does the presence of observers affect a person’s performance?
How does the presence of observers affect a person’s performance? It improves performance on easy tasks and hinders a person’s performance on difficult tasks .
How many participants were in the Milgram experiment?
In Milgram’s experiments, conducted at Yale University in the early 1960s, around 780 people took part in what they were told was a study about learning and memory.
What did the Milgram experiment demonstrate quizlet?
1. Milgram found that people will obey orders to hurt another person . ... even when this means they hurt another person.
Why was Zimbardo’s experiment unethical?
Ethical Issues
The study has received many ethical criticisms, including lack of fully informed consent by participants as Zimbardo himself did not know what would happen in the experiment (it was unpredictable). Also, the prisoners did not consent to being ‘arrested’ at home.
What ethical guidelines did Milgram break?
Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for breaking numerous ethical guidelines, including: deception, right to withdraw and protection from harm .
When was the Milgram experiment conducted?
Milgram began his experiments in July 1961 , the same month that the trial of Adolf Eichmann—the German bureaucrat responsible for transporting Jews to the extermination camps during the Holocaust—concluded in Jerusalem.
How can Milgram’s study be applied to real life?
Milgram’s discovery about the unexpectedly powerful human tendency to obey authorities can be applied to real life in several different ways. First, it provides a reference point for certain phenomena that, on the face of it, strain our understanding-thereby, making them more plausible.
What were the criticisms of Milgram’s research?
The modern criticisms include: When a participant hesitated in applying electric shocks, the actor playing the role of experimenter was meant to stick to a script of four escalating verbal “prods” . In fact, he frequently improvised, inventing his own terms and means of persuasion.
