A bad experiment
Psychologists often choose to conduct experiments to help support their theories, or to also try and figure out why people react the way they do to certain things. Not everyone is going to always agree on the way the experiment is done or the methods used during the experiment, but that does not change the fact that they are done. In the 1960’s a Yale professor, Stanley Milgram, decided to conduct an experiment that is still being talked about and analyzed fifty years later. Milgram’s experiments where immoral and had significant negative effects on the participants. Does he deserve the credit and praise for his work?
In Milgram’s study he placed a add asking for volunteers then he mislead them into thinking they were involved …show more content…
Brannigan Quotes roger brown as saying Milgram’s work was identified as “the most important psychological research done in his generation .” in the article Brannigan goes on to say that Milgram contributed to the social psychology that “situation” is one of the most important determinant of social behavior. If these statements were true then why it does later say on the article that Milgram whose experiments supposedly determined that 65% of the subject were obedient, had manipulated the outcome and cherry picked his results for impact. In Branigans article, Gina Perry a journalist discovered six different conditions that Milgram didn’t include in his findings. In one condition “intimate relationships” Perry found a note of Milgram’s that states “within the context of his experiment, this is as powerful a demonstration of disobedience that can be found.” Obviously Milgram did not want this included in his findings. Perry interviewed subjects of the experiment and learned that Milgram assured them that their reactions were normal. However in Milgram’s book he describes the obedient subjects as “moral Imbeciles. Perry discovered that among the subjects she interviewed they had all suffered enduring levels of trauma. She also learned that the majority of subjects were not adequately debriefed in a timely