Milgrim And Obedience

Obedience is the act of practicing obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance. Humans have an instinct to obey because of the role authority plays. Milgram’s research proves my point in his case study that involved shocks of voltage. From birth, we learn that everything has a consequence or punishment after an action. Children learn simple philosophies in their youngest age such as obeying their parent’s requests. Something as simple as eating vegetables has a consequence. A reward gives the child satisfaction to emphasize the good behavior or, in the opposite case, bad behavior. As humans get older, this simple idea enlarges when it applies to different phases in life. Scientists like Milgrim and Marta Laupa study factors that play a role
He used cruel and unusual ways to study how humans will react to authority. The punishments included electrical shocks at different voltages. This is just one of way psychologists test authority versus obedience. His experiment involved 42 participants, some of them being the enforcer and some acting as the victim. The authority role would execute the victim with electrical shocks beginning from 15 to 450. Milgrim’s blind case study took place at Harvard University where the participants agreed to take part without any kind of explanation. The authoritative volunteer requested the number of voltages from the patient. No one objected the voltage until it reached a maximum of 450. As the voltage amount rose, the participants allegedly showed signs of stress and nervousness but never refused the electricity until the last and most fatal amount of
The process involved students who were appointed as conflict managers or honor patrol. The chosen ones were taught to approach students to resolve arguments such as turn-taking. Laupa required 80 children from four classes: first grade, third grade, fifth grade, and seventh grade. Subjects were then put in situations where they must chose to listen to another person. For example, the scientist listed a few such as lady versus former peer authority. This example is fundamental to the understanding of obedience. This illustration baffles children because they are put in a situation where the lady has adult status, which shows authority but no knowledge, but the former peer authority shows knowledge but no adult status like the previous lady. Laupa’s case proves that children are a biased subject to chose for the obedience in Milgrim’s case because children have a different way of thinking compared to adults who have prior experience to the social world. Children’s naive way of thinking benefits them since they are not interested in social system that adults are in