The central hypothesis of Stanly Milgram’s experiment was that individuals would not intentionally inflict pain on their fellow individuals just because someone in a higher authority asked them to. The dependent variable, in this case, was the voltage shock that was to be administered to learners by teachers. There was no independent variable.
From the experiment, Milgram’s analysis showed that over 60% of teachers kept on administering a severe electric shock to the learners even when the subjects kept expressing their suffering and, ultimately, going silent. What is interesting is that the teachers knew what they were doing was oppressive but they pushed on. Milgram, therefore, concluded that individuals are more likely to keep obeying the orders of their authorities even if they think that the orders are oppressive to other people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In my opinion, Milgram’s experiment cannot be exactly replicated today due to the ethical guidelines that it breaks. Over time, matters of ethics have increasingly become crucial. During the experiment, we witness instances in which Milgram breaks the guidelines of the right to non-participation. He even deceives the participants by lying to them.
This experiment has several implications. The first is that an ordinary person going about his usual business can be heavily influenced by authority into performing destructive processes. The power of obedience of human beings tends to be underestimated. Naturally, human beings are submissive to those that have power over them. They, therefore, can go the extra mile to prove this obedience. For instance, we see some teachers continuing to administer electric shock to the learners even after the learners have passed out.
Although Milgram’s experiment proves a lot, it comes under heavy criticism. For instance, the experiment was not carried out in a natural setting. The teachers were literally forced into heavily torturing people for the purposes of research. All parties involved were aware that it was research, including the learners. It is, therefore, possible that some teachers and learners handled the pressure in an unnatural way. This brings to question the authenticity of the results obtained.
