Comparative Critique: Milgram vs. Asch

Comparative Critique In a comparative critique similarities and differences are given between two articles as well as the readers own opinion of the authors’ work. In Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience”, certain experiments were conducted on separate types of individuals. Milgram forces his subjects to administer shocks to a non-existent person on the other side of a wall. This experiment questions the obedience of individuals when put in a sadistic environment. On the other hand in Solomon E. Asch’s “Opinions and Social Pressure”, he gives a basic line reading test to a unanimous group versus his accomplices. Asch’s accomplices give the wrong answer on easy questions and this pushes the unanimous group into a hesitant situation. The author tests the responses of the unanimous group in order to better understand obedience under stress or controversy. In both of the articles, humanity’s obedience is assessed in different circumstances. Without a sense of obedience, society cannot function. Even though there are many similarities between Milgram and Asch, they are different in these three ways. While participants in Milgram’s experiment faced a one on one trial, students in Asch’s tests encountered a one on several trial. In Milgram’s article, results show a higher rate of confidence on a one on one situation rather than a group setting. When the teacher is told to administer the shocks, they are more willing since they cannot see the person in pain. The blind aspect of the procedure enhances the willingness of the participant. In Asch’s experiment, the confidence levels of the unanimous contestants significantly lower due to the publicity and peer pressure. As the instructor holds up the cards, the accomplices each share their answer leaving the unanimous participant last. When the contestants defy the dissenter it creates self-doubt. The dissenter is left feeling insecure and unsure of his answer. “The dissenter becomes more and more worried and hesitant as the disagreement continues in succeeding trials” (Asch 3). These results conclude that confidence plays off of obedience. In addition to the differences between the Milgram and Asch articles, one can point out that responsibility plays a major role in obedience along with insecurity and peer pressure. Throughout Milgram's article, obedience is a common aspect. Obedience and responsibility are like Siamese twins; both carry out the same action. Within Milgram's experiment, most off the responsibility lies in the hands of the experimenter. The experimenter is the one who forces the teacher to carry out any and all orders regardless of how he/she feels about it. For example, during Milgram's tests, the experimenter repeatedly states, "I accept all responsibility, the responsibility is mine, I'm responsible for anything that happens, please continue" (Milgram 81). Furthermore, Asch relays an alternative point in his article. In this section, the contestants convey a false responsibility resulting in excuses. Instead of the subjects blaming the experimenter, they attributed their own poor eyesight and bad judgement. The others who acted independently believed it was their own obligation to call the play as they saw it and failure to do so was also their own responsibility (Asch 144). In final consideration, all of the points efficiently perceive society and how responsibility is a regular concept. At this level, one can expect insecurity and responsibility to be connected to both society and obedience. Along with these points comes gender which also ties to the central theme of obedience in society. In other words, gender is a determining factor in the Milgram and Asch articles. In terms of relating gender to theses articles, Milgram tests on both men and women while Asch only test on men. The past stereotype of men and women is quite a controversy. For example, people assume men work at a real job all day while women stay at home doing chores and cooking for the family. Present day the stereotype still exists but isn't as strong. In Milgram's article he tested both men and women to have a variation of results. Opposing Milgram, Asch tests on only men in order to have a more controlled experiment and similar results. The responses of the genders reflect on their standard conformity and how they are portrayed in modern day. If society did not have both men and women, there would not be an equilibrium of obedience. Although the authors did not specify on gender, their results could have proved a better answer. In final analysis, the Milgram and Asch articles are different in three significant factors. Insecurity, responsibility, and gender all test different levels of humanity's obedience, but, they come together and make society function in a revolving way. Insecurity and peer pressure relate to obedience in the sense that society is put under stressful situations. Responsibility of society reflects on people's obedience. In the experiments, the subjects either took responsibility for their actions or blamed it on someone else. Society has a similar routine to this. People take responsibility for their actions or don't and that decides their obedience. Lastly, gender correlates to how society functions with roles and stereotypes. Throughout the readings, one comes to the general consensus that they are informal. The authors wrote the articles in an extremely relaxed manor forcing readers to look farther for the underlying messages. The authors efficiently explained obedience. The unexpected situations discovered truly accorded to the writers overall purpose. The authors elucidated on the issues presented completely and clearly.

Asch, Solomon E. "Opinions and Social Pressure." Scientific American. 1995: Print. Rpr in Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Second Edition. Christine R. Farris and Deanna M. Jessup. New York: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2013. 142-147. Print.

Milgram, Stanley. "The Perils of Obedience." Obedience to Authority. 1974: Print. Rpr in Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Second Edition. Christine R. Farris and Deanna M. Jessup. New York: Pearson Custom Publishing, 2013. 77-89. Print.