Social Psychological Experiments Essay -- Social Issues, Authority

Stanley Milgram, a amicable psychologist, conducted an essay in 1963 around human obedience that was deemed as one of the most controversial social psychology tests ever (Blass). Ian Parker, a writer for the New 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 community reviews and scrutinizes each opposites work to authenticate experiment results. Baumrind focuses on the moral and honest dilemma while, Parker focuses more on the experiments actual application. The experiments original intent was to determine if society would plain accompany to authority when entrap under pressure by an coercive figure. Milgram put a twist on the experiment asking the age-old forefront of, if the Germans during WWII were simply obeying to authority when carrying out the Holocaust or were they all playacting on their own(Blass). The test subject, or teacher, would administer electric shocks to the pupil, a paid actor, when the apprentice incorrectly answered the word pairings. The teacher thought the learner was receiving electric shocks when in reality the learner was not receiving any shocks. An instructor, the authoritative figure, was sitting behind the teacher reassuring the teacher that the shocks may be painful but would not inflict permanent 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 dismantle when the learner cried out in pain and begged for the experiment to stop (ABC). lxv percent of the time, the teacher continued until he administered the ... ... Baumrinds idea that if Milgram were to full disclose the experiment would it still produces the same results as the original experiment? Milgram does arrange for a friendly meeting surrounded by the teacher and the le arner after the experiment. The meeting was supposed to relieve all tensions that are burthen upon the teacher throughout the experiment. Baumrind does not believe that this simple 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 act 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 previous(p) death(234).