The case for versus the case against.

Authors Avatar

The Case For versus The Case Against

     Baumrind criticised Milgram for showing insufficient respect for his pps, inadequate steps taken to protect pps, possibly leading to long-term harm. Lack of informed consent, deception by disguising the true nature of the experiment and possible psychological harm.

     In his defence Milgram claims it would not have been possible to get results, which reflected behaviour in real situations without deception.

     Zimbardo was similarly criticised for deceiving pps. Critics believe it is really not necessary in research and particularly unethical. They proposed other more ethically acceptable methods, such as asking pps to imagine how they would behave in certain situations, could be used.

     However Milgram did this by asking people how many pps would go to 450V on the shock generator, their predictions grossly underestimated the levels of obedience found. Zimbardo claimed ‘as if’ or ‘predict how you would behave in this situation’ would be missing out on some of the powerful yet subtle dynamics of situational control.

Join now!

     Nevertheless Milgram and Zimbardo might have causes pps psychological harm during their experiments. Milgram recorded pps trembling, stuttering and sweating. Zimbardo’s experiment had to be discontinued after just 6 days of the 2 weeks due to extreme emotional and behavioural effects. Did the knowledge gained justify the means by which it was acquired? Savin thinks not.

     Zimbardo disagrees, his follow up over many years revealed no lasting negative effects, student pps were healthy and able to bounce back from their ‘prison experience’. Milgram’s questionnaire distributed to pps after the experiment concluded that 84% of pps ...

This is a preview of the whole essay