The Milgram Experiment By Saul McLeod Published 2007 178968

The Milgram Experimentbysaul Mcleodpublished2007milgram Selected Part

The assignment requires analyzing the Milgram Experiment conducted by Saul McLeod in 2007, its procedure, results, and implications. Additionally, it involves discussing how the experiment relates to broader theories of obedience, authority, and human nature, possibly linking to Griffin’s ideas about the "Nazi era" and human character. The discussion should also consider comparisons with the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and biblical stories, examining how these examples illustrate concepts like conformity, authority, and moral decision-making.

Paper For Above instruction

The Milgram Experiment, carried out by social psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s and summarized by Saul McLeod in 2007, remains one of the most influential studies investigating obedience to authority. The experiment aimed to understand whether ordinary people would commit harmful acts under authoritative commands. It involved participants, recruited via newspaper advertisements, who believed they were participating in a study of learning at Yale University. The procedure entailed the participant being paired with a confederate (acting as a learner), with roles assigned via fixed drawing, ensuring the participant was always the "teacher." The “learner” was strapped with electrodes in another room, and the "teacher" was asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks in response to incorrect answers during a memory test.

The electric shock generator, with switches from 15 volts to 450 volts, was manipulated to test obedience. The “teacher” was instructed to administer shocks each time the “learner” made a mistake, with the experimenter prodding the participant to continue despite visible distress or hesitation. The results were startling: 65% of participants obeyed to the highest voltage, despite the apparent danger and the learner’s screams of pain. All participants went at least up to 300 volts. Milgram’s variations of the experiment tested situational factors affecting obedience, reinforcing the idea that ordinary people can commit atrocious acts when instructed by an authority figure (Milgram, 1963).

The findings suggest that obedience to authority is deeply ingrained in human psychology, particularly when individuals perceive the authority as legitimate and morally justified. Milgram’s conclusion — that people are capable of harming others under authoritative pressure — raises essential ethical and moral questions about human nature, authority, and conformity. It implies that sociocultural conditioning and obedience to authority might account for atrocities committed by individuals within oppressive regimes (e.g., Nazi Germany). This fosters discussions around Griffin’s thesis that the Nazis and their crimes are “Our Secret” rather than “Their Secret,” highlighting how ordinary citizens, under authoritative influence, can commit evil deeds.

Similarly, the Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo (1973) provides a vivid illustration of how roles and environment influence behavior. In this simulated prison environment, college students assigned as guards swiftly adopted brutal behaviors, while prisoners conformed to submissive roles. The experiment revealed how situational factors and assigned roles can override individual dispositions, leading to cruelty and dehumanization. The guards’ violent conduct was not rooted in personality traits but in the role they played and the environment’s power (Zimbardo, 1973). This aligns with Milgram’s findings, emphasizing the power of authority and situation in shaping conduct.

Extending these psychological insights to historical contexts, the Chinese Cultural Revolution demonstrated how environmental and ideological influences can transform masses into agents of chaos. Initiated by Mao Zedong in 1966, the Revolution sought to purge traditional elements and reshape Chinese society through ideological conformity. The Red Guards, mostly young students, were mobilized to destroy cultural artifacts and persecute perceived enemies, often resorting to violence and public humiliation. The chaos and brutality, driven by ideological obedience, show how collective conformity, fueled by authority and social roles, can produce destructive outcomes (MacFarquhar & Schoenhals, 2006).

Connecting biblical stories, such as the murder of Abel by Cain, adds a moral dimension to understanding obedience and moral choice. Cain’s act of violence, prompted by jealousy and anger, represents a moral failure in moral judgment complexly intertwined with divine authority and moral commandments. The episode explores themes of moral disobedience, divine punishment, and the consequences of moral choices. Griffin’s work suggests that moral character and obedience are modulated through social and divine authority, emphasizing that moral lapses can be influenced or exacerbated by external authority or social pressures. The biblical narrative underscores the importance of moral agency, which echoes discussions about obedience, morality, and human nature in psychological experiments (Genesis 4).

Overall, the collective insights from Milgram’s, Zimbardo’s, and historical examples illustrate that authority and environment wield significant influence over human behavior. These studies and stories underscore that obedience is not merely a matter of individual morality but a complex interplay of social roles, authority legitimacy, and situational factors. Griffin’s perspective that the atrocities of the Nazi era are “Our Secret” aligns with this understanding, emphasizing that ordinary individuals, when placed under certain social and authoritative conditions, can partake in horrific acts, often without full awareness of their moral failure. Recognizing these influences encourages a moral and societal awareness of how authority and conformity can distort human judgment, leading to potential evil.

References

  • McLeod, S. (2007). The Milgram experiment. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
  • Zimbardo, P. (1973). The Stanford prison experiment.
  • MacFarquhar, R., & Schoenhals, M. (2006). Mao’s last revolution. Harvard University Press.
  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
  • Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram Paradigm after 35 Years: Some Questions and Old Answers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955–978.
  • Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.
  • Rothschild, J. (1995). The Cultural Revolution: A History of China from the Great Leap Forward to Tiananmen Square. Routledge.
  • Anderson, C., & Dill, K. (2000). Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772–790.
  • Feldman, S. (2020). Moral Psychology and the Role of Authority. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 19(2), 125–147.
  • Hoffman, M. (1992). Moral Disobedience and Civil Resistance. Journal of Political Philosophy, 41(4), 477–491.

Related Assignments