Critique: Stanford Prison Experiment
Cody Porter
ACP Comp, Period 2
November 25, 2013
Redo Critique Paper
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. 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
ACP Comp, Period 2
November 25, 2013
Redo Critique Paper
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. 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