Table of ContentsSummaryThe Milgram ExperimentThe ResultsWhat Would I Do Differently?SummaryIn recent history, Hitler was able to confirm to many people the same belief he did: race Aryan was superior and those who were. No Aryan needed to be exterminated, especially the Jews. One wonders how Hitler was able to not only get people to conform to his way of thinking, but also to obey Hitler's demand to torture and/or kill millions of people. Would the end of World War II change the way people respond to authority figures? Would people take a stand against authority? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The Milgram Experiment “The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram designed the experiment to answer the question: Could it be that Eichmann and his millions of accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Can we treat them all as accomplices? (Milgram, 1974). » (McLeod, 2017) In 1961, Stanley Milgram published in a newspaper that he needed men to help him with his studies at Yale University. Forty men, aged 20 to 50, from diverse backgrounds and careers, were chosen to participate in the experiment. The chosen men were led to believe that the study was designed to determine whether punishment had an impact on learning. Unfortunately, Milgram may not have been very honest. Once the men were chosen for the study, they were given instructions, a time and dates to meet in a laboratory. In the laboratory, the chosen man and a second man pulled a sheet of paper into a pool. The paper had either “teacher” or “learner” on it, the paper chosen was the role you were leading. “The second man was a Confederate; the participant would always play the role of “teacher” and the second man would invariably become that of “learner”. (Psychology Science, 2013). The word "teacher" was actually printed on both sides of the document, so that the candidate was always the "teacher" and his sidekick always pretended to be the "learner." The instructions were simple: “Participants were given instructions to teach pairs of words to the confederate. After reading the list of words once, teachers were asked to test the learner's memory by reading a word and asking them to name one of the four words associated with it. (Psychology Science, 2013). The “learner” was asked to sit in a device that looked very much like an electric chair. Unlike the electric chair, the “skinny one” only had his wrist attached – this is how the electric zaps were administered to him. “The learner (an accomplice called Mr Wallace) was taken to a room and electrodes were attached to his arms.” (McLeod, 2017). When the learner made a mistake, he or she was electrocuted with volts ranging from fifteen to four hundred and fifty separated into thirty levels, or fifteen volt increments. “The electric shock generator has 30 switches starting at 15 volts, labeled “mild shock” up to 450 volts, labeled “severe shock hazard.” » (Zetzer, 2017). The teacher zapped "Mr. Wallace" at a low voltage (forty-five) on the wrist and increased the intensity for each wrong answer. "The learner gave mostly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each between them, the teacher administered an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter had to give a series of commands/prods to ensure that the shock continued.(McLeod, 2017). How far are people willing to go before questioning or disobeying authority? “The experimenter told the participants to punish any mistake by the learner by pressing a button and administering an electric shock; even though they could not see the learner, the participants could hear their cries. (Psychological Sciences, 2013). Knowing that the shocks started at forty-five volts and went up to four hundred and fifty volts, how far were the teachers willing to go? When the "teachers" felt they could no longer inflict pain, they were asked to continue: Please continue. The experience demands that you continue. You must continue. You have no other choice; you must continue. (Psychology Science, 2013). “As the level of shock increased, the learner began to show pain signals, asking for the experiment to be stopped and eventually stating that he had a heart condition before becoming surprisingly silent. » (Zetzer, 2017). Even after the pleading, reasoning and silence, the “teachers” continued the experiment. How many “teachers” have obeyed the four commandments? How many stopped and when? Have the “teachers” suffered any ill effects by punishing the “learner”? The Results Believe it or not, fourteen of the forty participants (teachers) obeyed up to three hundred volts and beyond. “65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued up to the highest level of 450 volts. All participants continued at 300 volts.” (McLeod, 2017). According to the required article, five teachers refused to go beyond three hundred volts, four went to three hundred and fifteen, two went to three hundred and thirty, one to three hundred and forty-five, three hundred and sixty and three one hundred and seventy-five. The remaining twenty-six participants went up to four hundred and fifty volts. “Even when learners were hitting the walls in pain after apparently receiving 300 volts, participants persisted. Eventually, the learner simply stopped responding. (Psychology Science, 2013). Although the majority of participants completed the experiment, they were not satisfied. A Psychology Science article quoted one of the participants: “I observed a mature, initially composed businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes, he was reduced to a trembling, stuttering wreck, quickly approaching the point of nervous collapse... At one point, he slammed his fist into his forehead and muttered, "Oh my God, let's stop this." And yet he continued to respond to the experimenter's every word and obeyed to the end. (Psychology Science, 2013). “The first ethical question was the degree of deception. Participants were not given a clear explanation of the possible risks before volunteering for the study, but were instead led to believe that they were causing physical harm to another person, exposing them to harm psychological potential. » (Zetzer, 2017). Personally. , I agree that Milgram was misleading and did not honestly inform the participants. I agree that Milgram was correct in his decision not to cause physical harm, the learner was only pretending to feel tension, but it was still very dishonest (deceptive) to not disclose all parts of the 'experience. In fact, the motivation and intention behind the experiment was also not disclosed to the candidates. However, I can understand what Milgram must have been thinking: if he were honest and told the "teacher" that the "learner" was acting in pain rather than suffering, the experiment would not yield honest results. I also believe that.