Diana Baumrind’s Review on Obedience Experiments from Stanley Milgram In Diana Baumrind’s “Review on Obedience Experiments from Stanley Milgram, she asserted that his experiments were unethical in its procedure. She also states the main idea that the variables in the experiments could have affected their results of obedience. Baumrind points out that there should have been more and better steps in having safer tests in protecting the test subjects.
She introduces her argument by pointing out the subjects of the Milgram’s experiment were in their belief that the “experimenter”. The meaning of the “experimenter” is that he or she is in authority of everything and deserves respect and should be reliable. “Milgram does not appear suited to the objectives of the study because it does not take into account the special quality of the set which the subject has in the experimental situation (p. 228).
” This states that in a laboratory is not the right setting for this type of experiment for obedience.
That’s the main problem. Baumrind suggested that Stanley Milgram’s tests on the experimenters could be harmful; mentally not physically. Also she believes the level of obedience in the experiments is unrelated to regular situations in obedience and authority. The setting of Milgram’s experiment was uncomfortable and the atmosphere was not right, the results were not effective to real-life situations, Baumrind points out. In stricter circumstances and setting the subjects seems to re-act better then lower severe situations.
The Essay on Milgram Baumrind Subjects Experiment
... Diana Baumrind, author of "Review of Stanley Milgram's Experiments on Obedience," criticizes Milgram on a few situations involved with the experiment that she disagreed with. Milgram performed the experiment ... the other room were real to the test subjects. Baumrind also strongly believes that the subject may have an extremely difficult time trusting ...
She lacks information about the subjects being uncomfortable and not feeling right in the laboratory, as well the feelings while being tested in the lab. She makes an intelligent remark, when she explains about the Hitler’s Germany and Milgram’s experiment together. “But the parallel between authority-subordinate relationships in Hitler’s Germany and in Milgram’s laboratory is unclear (228).
” Milgram’s conclusion cannot easily be applied to real life. Hitler’s guards were commanded to kill anyone that Hitler ordered them to.
The guards that were ordered to kill, they did not question those orders, may be in their minds they did but, the guards did what guards were supposed to do, kill. The officers were acting according to their beliefs, which were that they thought the Jews were subhuman. That meant they were unaccountable for their doings. Baumrind’s logic is not strong, for there are other reasons why the SS officers did what they did. Hitler’s Germany and Milgram’s experiment tie together pretty well.
Baumrind, she puts this information in to show the hideous nature of humans, and their actions of authority. She is not missing Milgram’s main point, she disagree with his main point. She uses good grammar, used the correct in-text citations, uses of transitions well between paragraphs, and does not leap to conclusions right away. She spread, out everything; it was precise, has good back up evidence to prove her thesis statement and points of Milgram’s experiment. Baumrind’s disagreement with Milgram’s process and with his conclusion is a key point.
The author gave a well done explanation on everything she just forgot to mention the subject’s viewpoints, and forgot to back up a few things, which weakness the article. Baumrind claimed that this Milgram experiment should not be done, it was a risky test, and different reactions towards the subjects could have been because they were in a laboratory. Lastly, Baumrind points out “Milgram’s experimental situations are not sufficiently accurate models of real-life experience”, Baumrind would not like to see future experiments that can affect people’s life.
