#katie scanlan

[cumbriacrack]

Happy Tails – Promoting literacy and animal welfare Oak Tree Animals’ Charity are championing local children’s reading skills with their brand new programme ‘Happy Tales’ which give children the chance to develop their reading skills Full story: https://www.cumbriacrack.com/2019/03/06/happy-tails-promoting-literacy-and-animal-welfare/

[milgram-experiment]

Alternative Interpretation

While Stanley Milgram’s study of conformity is very well known, it is not above criticism or fault. If anything, because the results are so widely regarded, it should be scrutinized even more. It certainly shows us something about the nature and extent of human conformity, but the study itself has some flaws, as does the way Milgram presented it.

The issue of ethics and emotional stress on the participants of this study is often brought up, but a closer look shows more problems within the research itself. While looking through old records of the experiment in the Yale library, it was discovered that the supervisors (those who told the participants to shock the “victim”) went off script (Romm, 2015). This presents an issue with the standardization of the study, as well as a problem with the control of the variables. With the experiment varying, even slightly, each time, it is hard to tell what actually impacted the participants even if the outcome is relatively similar. On top of this, some of the participants knew that the experiment was a hoax even before participating (Romm, 2015). This could create biases within the volunteers, and skew the results. This also messes with the standardization as well. It causes similar issues as the deviation from the script.

However, with slightly altered versions of this experiment being recreated in modern times, it is hard to deny that Milgram’s conclusions are completely wrong. That does not mean that they should be taken at face value. Some critics also claim that Milgram presented his experiment for the shock value rather than for pure science. Stephen Reicher describes Milgram’s studies as “fantastic little pieces of theater” (Romm, 2015).

With Milgram’s classification of participants as either disobedient or obedient, he may have missed some of the complexity of the issue he was trying to face. For example, people in Milgram’s experiment protested even when they continued to follow orders. Should that be taken into account? Milgram believed that a person’s behavior was very dependent on their situation because of the willingness to conform, but it is important to take into account the possibility that people can learn to break out of that and “learn to disobey toxic orders” (Romm, 2015).

Milgram’s experiment shows some valid aspects of human behavior, but fails to take a deep enough look at what it shows. It is true that there are some explanations given such as diversion of responsibility and trust in authority, but something beyond this is needed. Milgram’s results are not as much contested as the interpretation. The world is not black and white, with strict conformity or pure nonconformity, and the explanations for everywhere in between are nuanced. No satisfactory answer has been found, but Milgram’s experiment is a starting point.

Citations

Romm, C. (2015, January 28). Retrieved April 05, 2016, from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/