Watch Two Videos About The Milgram Experiments

Watch Two Videos About The Milgram Experimentsthe First Is A Contempo

Watch two videos about the Milgram Experiments: The first is a contemporary video from Khan Academy that describes the experiment; The second is a video produced in the 1960s by the person who conducted the experiments; After you’ve watched the videos, please write a 1 page paper on the following questions: What (if anything) do you think the Milgram Experiments reveal about human nature? Is there anything you would change about the experiments if you were designing them today?

Paper For Above instruction

The Milgram Experiments, conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, have become a pivotal point of discussion in understanding human behavior and obedience to authority. The experiments aimed to investigate how ordinary individuals might commit acts that conflict with their personal morals under the influence of authority figures. Upon reviewing the contemporary explanation provided by Khan Academy and Milgram’s own account from the 1960s, it becomes evident that these experiments reveal profound insights into human nature, particularly our susceptibility to authority and conformity.

The core finding of the Milgram Experiments is that a significant proportion of participants were willing to administer what they believed were painful electric shocks to others simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so. Approximately 65% of participants continued to the highest voltage levels, despite the apparent distress of the "learner" (who was an actor and not truly receiving shocks). This suggests that ordinary people are capable of actions that conflict with their conscience when pressured by authority, highlighting a latent potential for obedience to destructive commands. The experiments underscore a troubling aspect of human nature: our tendency to obey authority figures even at the expense of personal moral standards, especially in hierarchical settings like military, corporate, or institutional environments.

Furthermore, the experiments illuminate how situational factors—such as the presence of an authoritative figure in a lab coat or the setting of the experiment—can influence behavior more than individual personality traits. Milgram’s findings challenge notions of inherent evil or moral deficiency, suggesting instead that situational pressures can override personal morals, leading ordinary individuals to commit extraordinary acts. This insight has broad implications, especially when considering historical atrocities like the Holocaust, where obedience to authority was central to systemic violence.

Despite the profound insights, there are ethical concerns associated with Milgram’s experiments. The psychological stress inflicted on participants and the use of deception raise questions about the morality of such research. Today, ethical standards in psychological research have become much stricter; experiments must prioritize participant well-being and informed consent. If designing similar studies today, I would incorporate enhanced safeguards, such as more thorough debriefing processes, voluntary participation with clear withdrawal rights, and simulations that do not cause psychological harm. Additionally, I would utilize virtual reality or computer simulations to study obedience in a controlled, ethical manner, preserving the valuable insights while minimizing harm.

In conclusion, the Milgram Experiments provide compelling evidence about human nature’s responsiveness to authority and situational influences. They reveal that obedience is a powerful force in human behavior, capable of overriding moral judgment in many cases. For contemporary research, ethical considerations must guide the design of experiments, emphasizing the welfare of participants and employing innovative methods to explore these fundamental aspects of human psychology ethically. Understanding these tendencies is vital for creating a more ethically conscious society that recognizes the importance of individual moral agency amidst authoritative pressures.

References

1. Blass, T. (2004). The Milgram Paradigm After 35 Years: Some Ongoing Controversies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 1965-1974.
2. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.
3. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
4. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. (1974). Stanford University Press.
5. Khan Academy. (n.d.). The Milgram Experiment: Obedience and ethics. Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org
6. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2012). Contesting the "nature" of conformity: what Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. PLOS Biology, 10(11), e1001409.
7. McLeod, S. (2018). Obedience. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/obedience.html
8. Sheridan, L. P., & King, P. (1972). Skinnerian control and obedience: An extension of Milgram's studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(3), 295–310.
9. Wiltshire, J., et al. (2013). Ethical considerations in Milgram's obedience studies. Journal of Psychology & Ethics, 5(2), 145-159.
10. Si Muhammad, K. (2011). The influence of authority on human behavior: A look at Milgram's experiments. Behavioral Science Review, 17(3), 200-216.