Introduction
Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted a study to examine the tension that exists between following orders and one’s conscience. Milgram executed his experiment in July 1961, a year after Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. The goal was to determine if Germans were unusually submissive to authority figures, which led to the following orders and conducting atrocities during World War II. This research study is immoral because participants in the Milligram experiment were made to believe they were shocking people. Thus, the protocols and ethical standards that exist to protect the participants of experiments and ensure the latter’s validity were violated by Milgram. After the study, the subjects received no care, and it is thought that this caused psychological harm to them. Moreover, ethical standards make it necessary to have the written, signed consent of the participants. Still, there are advantages of the Milgram study that are still being explored, and institutions have even started using the result to teach students. Although the findings of the Milgram experiment were helpful and advanced social sciences and physiology studies, Milgram conducted his research unethically.
Background on the Experiment
One of the most well-known experiments on obedience in psychology was conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. He conducted an experiment that looked at the tension between following orders and one’s conscience. In his 1963 study, Milgram looked at the arguments for genocide put out by individuals accused during the World War II Nuremberg War Criminal proceedings (Alexandre & David, 2021). They frequently used the excuse of obedience claiming that they were carrying out their superiors’ orders. Thus, the trial participants insinuated that they were innocent because they acted under the pressure of authoritative pressure.
The experiment was conducted right after the trials held for war criminals. One year after Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, the experiments got underway in July 1961 (da Costa et al., 2021). Milgram came up with the experiment to address the following: “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (as cited in da Costa et al., 2021, 717). As this was a prevalent justification for the Nazi atrocities during World War II, Milgram sought to determine whether Germans were particularly submissive to authoritative figures. By placing an advertisement in the newspaper seeking male subjects for research on learning at Yale University, Milgram was able to find participants for his experiment. The participant was paired with another individual, and they decided by drawing lots who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner” in their partnership (da Costa et al., 2021, p. 717). It was predetermined that the participant would always be the teacher and the learner would be one of Milgram’s accomplices posing as a real participant. When the teacher and researcher entered the room next door, it was equipped with an electric shock generator and a row of switches labeled with the warnings “Danger: Severe Shock” and “450 volts,” and the learner had electrodes attached to his arms (da Costa et al., 2021, p. 717). Thus, the participants were made to believe that they would cause harm to others throughout this study.
The participant’s explanation for their behavior would be that there was something about them personally that made them want to comply with Milgram’s instructions. However, a more plausible explanation is that the circumstances they were in affected them and led them to act as they did. The formality of the setting, the experimenter’s conduct, and the fact that they had volunteered and been paid for the experiment are a few elements of the context that could have affected their behavior (APA, 2017). The results of this study lead one to believe that ordinary people frequently obey authority figures’ directions, even if it means killing an innocent person. Due to the way people are raised, obedience to authority is instilled in all of them. People are more likely to follow instructions from other people if they believe their authority to be morally or legally sound. Therefore, this response to righteous authority is developed in a variety of contexts, including the home, the classroom, and the workplace.
Ethical Implications
Since the participants in the experiment were made to believe they were shocking actual people, the experiment is regarded as unethical. The people were not aware that the students were Milligram employees. Moreover, Milgram asserted that lying was necessary for the experiment to produce the desired outcomes (Alexandre & David, 2018). However, the fact that the leader of this research study lied to the participants is one example of why it is unethical and does not follow standards for research studies. Secondly, the protection of the people involved in the study was also another ethical dilemma. The subjects are thought to have had psychological damage during the trial. According to Alexandre and David (2018), concerns were raised over the impact the experiment would have on other volunteers. Finally, the withdrawal right, by which participants were discouraged from withdrawing, presented another ethical problem with the study. Therefore, Milgram’s study violated at least three principles of ethics applied to research studies.
One way to assess the ethicality of an experiment is to compare its protocol to that of an authoritative organization. For the Milligram experiment to adhere to the APA’s Code of Conduct and ethical standards, some factors need to be adjusted. The participants’ risk is the first aspect of this. Risk to participants is primarily divided into three categories: physical injury, psychological injury, and invasion of privacy (APA, 2017). All of these dangers were present for the Milligram trial participants, and no type of treatment was provided following the study (APA, 2017). Therefore, the risk of harming the psychological and physical well-being of the subject was high during Milgram’s study.
Next, to obtain participants’ written and signed consent, informed consent is also necessary. The agreement must outline what participants will do, the advantages of taking part, their right to withdraw from the study at any time, and whom they can contact with questions (da Costa et al., 2021). Thirdly, no one should be forced into taking part in a study, and volunteers must be chosen for an examination in an ethical manner (da Costa et al., 2021). Furthermore, a study’s objectives should be to maximize the participants’ benefits and minimize their harm. This rule was broken by the milligram experiment since the community received little benefit from the survey, and those who took part suffered harm.
The advantages of the Milgram study are still being researched, and higher education institutions have even started teaching it. The study’s great dependability is one of its advantages (Alexandre & David, 2018). Looking at the findings from Milgram’s study of the two-repeat structure, it is still useful for illuminating how submissive people are to authority. This refutes the theory of deference flight as a result (Alexandre & David, 2018). Moreover, the study also demonstrated how people act and how authority may provide insightful information. The Milgram experiment improved people’s perceptions of authority. As a result, Milgram was aware of the research’s consequences and made an effort to address them, and this study did not adhere to the rules of ethics.
The Milgram experiment’s primary goal was to determine the connection between authority and obedience. Milgram’s research shows that people will carry out an authoritative figure’s orders even to kill innocent people (Alexandre & David, 2018). Obedience to authority is mostly instilled in people through their upbringing (Alexandre & David, 2018). Deception, the freedom to withdraw, and the protection of participants were all violated by the study. The basis for how the study is being done is the violation of these ethical standards. The Milgram experiment has shed light on how people behave toward those in positions of authority. Without even considering the moral ramifications of their behavior, people are eager to comply with directives from those in positions of authority (Alexandre & David, 2018). Therefore, the Milgram experiment has shed much light on how people act around authority figures, but it has provided insights into people’s behavior.
Conclusion
In summary, in an experiment, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram explored the conflict between obeying commands and one’s conscience. One year after Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, the experiments began in July 1961. They wanted to know if Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures. Because participants in the Milligram experiment were led to believe they were harming real people, it is believed to be immoral. There was no treatment given to the participants after the trial, and it is believed that they sustained psychological damage. Participants’ informed consent is also required to get their written, signed consent. The Milgram study’s benefits are still being investigated, and universities have even begun teaching it. Considering the outcomes of Milgram’s investigation on the two-repeat structure, one should treat the outcomes of it with caution.
References
Alexandre, L., & David, B. (2018). Logic of submission and commandment: From S. Milgram’s experiment to the slogan power. Psicologia Clínica, 30(1), 61-80.
American Psychological Association [APA]. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Web.
da Costa, S., Delfino, G., Murattori, M., Zubieta, E., García, L., Páez, D., & Sosa, F. (2021). Obedience to authority, cognitive and affective responses, and leadership style about a non-normative order: The Milgram experiment. Revista de Psicología, 39(2), 717-744.