IndexAbstractThe Milgram ExperimentThe ResultsWhat Would I Do Differently?AbstractIn recent history, Hitler managed to convince many people to believe as he did: the Aryan race was superior, and those who were superior were not the Aryans needed to be exterminated, especially the Jews. It makes you wonder how Hitler managed 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 react to authority figures? Would people take a stand against authority? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Milgram Experiment“The experiments began in July 1961, a year after Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. Milgram conceived the experiment to answer the question: Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were simply following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?' (Milgram, 1974).” (McLeod, 2017) In 1961, Stanley Milgram published in a newspaper that he needed men to help him with a study at Yale University. Forty men, aged between 20 and 50, from different backgrounds and careers were chosen to participate in the experiment. The men chosen were led to believe that the study should conclude whether punishment had an impact on learning. Unfortunately, Milgram may not have been very sincere. Once the men were chosen for the study, they were given instructions, times, and dates to meet in a laboratory. In the laboratory, the chosen man and a second man would extract a sheet of paper from a swimming pool. “Teacher” or “student” was printed on the paper, the chosen paper was the role you fill. “The second man was a Confederate; the participant always assumed the role of “teacher” and the second man was invariably made “the student.” (Psychology Science, 2013). The document actually had "teacher" printed on both sides so that the applicant was always the "teacher" and the peer always claimed to be the "student". The instructions were simple: “participants were instructed to teach pairs of words to the confederate. After reading the list of words once, teachers had to test the student's memory by reading a word and asking him to name one of four words associated with it. (Psychology Science, 2013). The “student” was asked to sit on a device that looked a lot like an electric chair. Unlike the electric chair, the "thinnest" only had his wrist tied: thus he was administered electric shocks. “The student (an accomplice called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms.” (McLeod, 2017). When the student made a mistake, he was shocked with volts ranging from fifteen to four hundred and fifty separated into thirty levels, or increments of fifteen volts. “The electric shock generator has 30 switches starting at 15 volts, labeled 'mild shock' up to 450 volts, labeled 'hazard severe shock.'” (Zetzer, 2017). The teacher zapped “Mr. Wallace” at a low voltage (forty-five) on the wrist and increased the intensity for each incorrect answer. “The student gave mostly incorrect answers (voluntarily), and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer the shock, the experimenter had to give a series of commands/stimulations to ensure they continued.” (McLeod, 2017).before the question or to disobey authority? “The experimenter told participants to punish any student errors by pressing a button and administering an electric shock; while they could not see the student, participants could hear his screams. (Psychological Sciences, 2013). Given that the shocks started at forty-five volts and went up to four hundred and fifty, how far were the teachers willing to go? When the “masters” felt they could no longer inflict pain, they were asked to continue: Please continue. The experiment requires you to continue. You have to continue. You have no other choice; you have to move on." (Psychology Science, 2013). "As the shock level increased, the student began showing signs of pain, asking to stop the experiment, and finally claiming to have a heart problem before becoming surprisingly quiet. " (Zetzer, 2017). Even after pleading, reasoning and silence, the “masters” continued with the experiment. How many “masters” obeyed all four commands? How many stopped and at what point? teachers” suffered any negative effects in punishing the “student”? The results Believe it or not, fourteen out of forty participants (teachers), obeyed up to and above three hundred volts. “65% (two thirds) of the participants ( i.e. teachers) continued at the highest level of 450 volts. All participants continued at 300 volts.” (McLeod, 2017) According to the requested article, five teachers refused to go above three hundred volts, four went to three hundred and fifteen, two went to three hundred and thirty, one went to three hundred and forty-five, three hundred and sixty, and three hundred and seventy-five. The remaining twenty-six participants went up to four hundred and fifty volts “Even when the students pounded on the walls in agony after apparently receiving 300 volts, the participants persisted. Eventually, the student simply stopped responding (Psychology Science, 2013). the experiment, was not happy. Psychology Science article quoted one of the participants: “I watched a mature and initially staid businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a trembling, stammering wreck , who was rapidly approaching the point of nervous collapse... At one point he pressed his fist to his forehead and muttered, "Oh God, let's stop." Yet he continued to respond to the experimenter's every word and obeyed until 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, rather they were led to believe that they were causing physical harm to another individual, exposing them to potential psychological harm.." (Zetzer, 2017). Personally, I agree that Milgram was deceptive and did not honestly inform the participants. I agree that Milgram was right in his decision to cause no physical harm, the student was only pretending to feel the tension, but. it was still very dishonest (deceitful) not to reveal all parts of the experiment. In fact, the purpose and intent of the experiment was not revealed to the applicants. However, I can understand what Milgram must have thought: if he was honest and had told the “teacher” that the “student” was acting in pain instead of feeling pain, the experiment would not have produced honest results. I also believe that Milgram would not have been able to fully question the participants. Would someone have responded to the notice that said, “I will pay you $4.50 if you help me determine how obedient you are”? "The BPS says researchers should clarify to.