Introduction
Baumrind (1964) has written about the experiments in obedience that were conducted by Milgram in a laboratory. Milgram had run an experiment in which a set of experimenters and subjects were placed together and the experimenter were asked to give electric shocks to the subject. The intensity of the electric shocks varied from the mild to the severe and it was Milgrams intention to understand the level of obedience that the experimenters would exhibit in carrying out the shocks, when they would stop giving the shocks and the reactions the subjects produced when given shocks. Milgram (1964) has responded to the objections that were raised by Baumrind. The paper provides a discussion of the two articles and discusses the view of Baumrind and Milgram about ethics in research.
Discussion
Baumrind (1964) has questioned the basis and the methodology used by Milgram in his experiments and suggest that while a psychologist has to balance his career and scientific interests, this should not be against the interests of the prospective subjects. When such situations do arise, then a balance has to be drawn to see that the subjects are not harmed. The author has argued that subjects do participate because they have to fulfil the course requirement and it is up to the researcher to question the merits ethically. The experiments should not cause undue pain or subject the subjects to indignity and Milgram’s experiments just did this.
When a subject agrees to an experiment, he does so based on trust, a need to be noticed and he assumes that his security and self-esteem would be protected. Baumrind has argued that Milgram has broken the subjects right to expect that researcher would be caring for his welfare. She further argues that the whole experiment was a waste and has raised questions about what possible use it can have. She has cited Milgram’s observations of the subjects who were exposed to electric shocks and she argues that Milgram was very detached while reporting the pain and suffering that the subjects were undergoing, the deep trauma and the indignity that they underwent.
Baumrind has also argued that by comparing the sadistic behaviour of Nazi guards in the concentration camps who were fully obedient, with the obedience of the experimenters who obeyed instructions and gave electric shocks are inhuman as the Nazi guards were de-humanized and regarded the humans as animals. The author has discouraged the repeat of such experiments.
Milgram (1964) has refuted the criticism that has been raised by Baumrind and has suggested that destructive disobedience in humans has to be studied to understand the levels to which people would obey their superiors. The author has clarified that the people who actually received the electric shocks were actors and that physically no electric shocks were administered. The actors only acted as if they were being given shocks.
The author has argued that Baumrind’s article was deficient in information and that she had not read the full article but only made some broad inferences. Milgram has further clarified that the whole experiment was designed only to see the level of obedience that could be expected from people. The author later asked the subjects to respond to a questionnaire and 84 percent of the subjects said that they were glad to have been in the experiment, 15% said that had neutral feelings while 1.3% said that they had negative feelings.
Conclusion
The student of the paper suggests that the article of Baumrind while being right in general terms and being right about ethics and the rights and dignity of the research subjects has erred in not gathering the full details of the experiments of Milgram. She has missed the main point about the research, which showed that actual electric shocks were not administered but that actors were used to enact their part. Milgram stands accused of self-seeking publicity and obfuscating the real facts behind reams of research and he has not actually proved as to what way the research has helped us to understand and diagnose psychological problems.
References
Baumrind Diana. 1964. Some thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgrams Behavioral Study of Obedience. American Psychologist. Volume 19. pp: 421-423.
Milgram Stanley. 1964. Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist. Volume 19. pp: 848-852.