1C Lesson Plan for “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience by Diana Baumrind (226)

 

Part One. Baumrind argues that the Milgram Experiment Is Flawed in Terms of Both Its Effectiveness and Ethics.

 

1. The subject has the right to believe that “his security and self-esteem will be protected.” See page 227 top.
2. The “game” and its rules are given to the subject and then behind the subject’s back the rules are changed. In other words, the subject was set up or duped.
3. The experiment doesn’t replicate conditions for obedience because the relationship between experimenter and subject has “unique features” that result in added anxiety to the degree that the subject feels “entrapped.” In other words, a person’s boss may not have as much power (unless we see the McDonald’s case)
4. The lab creates a setting where the subject is more passive and more prone to be obedient.
5. An ethical researcher does preliminary psychological profiling and clinical training in order to insure the mental safety of the subject. None of these precautions were taken. To the contrary, Milgram used all the forces—trickery, the authority and trust of his position, and actors feigning torture and death—to traumatize the subjects. 
6. A most interesting point is made in paragraphs 4 and 5: Baumrind asserts that in the name of “science,” Milgram is too obedient to his “scientific objectives” and as such is guilty of the very loathsome behavior he so eagerly finds in others. He manipulates, embarrasses, and discomforts his subjects with icy cold detachment. In a way Milgram is the subject administering shock to the students behind the screen. This is my inference, not something Baumrind explicitly states.
7. In paragraph 6 Baumrind questions the value of Milgram’s findings, especially if their value is measured against the morally dubious methods he uses on the subjects. Baumrind states that the experimental findings are of questionable value while the harm to the subjects is definite and permanent.
8. In paragraph 7 Baumrind is skeptical about Milgram’s findings because the lab setting does not replicate “real-life experience.”
9. Baumrind points out in paragraphs 9 and 10 that Milgram relies on a faulty comparison: comparing SS men in Nazi Germany obeying orders to slaughter and the subjects and the researcher. The SS men did not see their superiors as benign researchers as the subjects did in Milgram’s experiment.
10. Baumrind points out in paragraph 11 that Milgram violated the Ethical Standards of Psychologists, which reads that subjects should not be exposed to emotional stress. 

• Stanley "Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind", American Psychologist, 1964, 19:848-852: Milgram replies to Baumrind's accusations as follows:
  

The study's objectives were not to cause stress -- the extreme anxiety was unexpected, as well as the fact that many subjects continued shocking the victim to the highest setting.

After each experiment each subject met their victim, and received an explanation that supported their decision in the test. All subjects received a detailed report of the results. They all received a follow-up questionnaire on the study too. The replies were very positive about the experiment, and most people were glad they participated in it. 74% said they learned something of personal importance because of the study. After the final report, subjects responded enthusiastically, and many wanted to be in the study again. 

Also one year after the study I had a impartial medical examiner evaluate 40 of the subjects. He didn't find any subjects with signs of being harmed by the study. 

Baumrind felt that obedience couldn't be tested in the laboratory. Milgram disagreed -- the laboratory is a useful starting point for understanding. 

Part Two: Writing a Counter-Argument or Refutation Essay

For Counter-Argument Structure, CLICK HERE. 

Apply Counter-Argument Structure to controversy surrounding the Milgram Experiment:

In a page, summarize Baumrind's objections to Milgram's experiment. Then in two pages give 4 reasons a reader might object to YOUR AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT with Baumrind. Then in another two pages argue that those objections are misguided as you defend your position. 

Part Three: What objections might a reader have with Baumrind's critique of Milgram's experiment?

1. Are the subjects really "entrapped" or by painting the subjects as being helpless is Baumrind making the subjects less accountable?

2. Yes, the subjects were subjected to trauma but isn't trauma worth it if it demonstrates a valuable truth about ourselves so we can improve who we are?

3. Regardless of the experiment's flaws (and comparing subjects to Nazis), doesn't the Milgram Study reveal valuable, disturbing information about authority and obedience? Just because this value cannot be measured to Baumrind's standards and just because the subjects were traumatized, should we dismiss Milgram's findings?

4. Does Baumrind place too much emphasis on preserving people's self-esteem? Shouldn't our self-esteem be challenged if our moral character proves lacking?


Sample Thesis That Supports Baumrind with a Concession

While defenders of Milgram are correct to point out the poignant, relevant discussion of blind obedience stirred by his controversial experiment, these Milgram defenders' attempt to justify the gross ethical and methodical errors renders their arguments misguided at best. In fact, the Milgram experiment is indefensible when we consider _________________________, ______________________, ______________________, and _________________________.

Sample Thesis That Defends Milgram with a Concession Clause

No one has said that Milgram's experiment is not without its flaws and that tighter methods could have been used and that ethically there are questions about the lifelong effects on the subjects or dupes. However, on balance the Milgram experiment, it cannot be denied, is a monumental contribution to culture and pyschology evidenced by ____________________, ________________________, _________________________, and ____________________________.