Management Notes

Reference Notes for Management

What was the primary conclusion of Stanley Milgram’s obedience research?

What was the primary conclusion of Stanley Milgram’s obedience research?

 Options:

a) What we sense and what we perceive vary according to culture, race, and gender.
b) Average people will harm others if told to do so by an authority figure.
c) Our mothers have an enormous impact on our personality.
d) Everyday behavior can be explained by instincts developed in our ancestral population.

The Correct Answer Is:

  • b) Average people will harm others if told to do so by an authority figure.

Answer Explanation:

The primary conclusion of Stanley Milgram’s obedience research is that Average people will harm others if told to do so by an authority figure. Humans’ willingness to obey orders from an authority figure was the purpose of the Milgram experiment. In the experiment, participants were instructed to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to another person.

Despite the participants’ ignorance, the shocks were fake and the shock recipients were actors. While screams of pain were heard from the individual on the receiving end, most participants obeyed. There has been widespread criticism of the experiment from an ethical and scientific perspective.

Stanley Milgram’s obedience research is one of the most famous and controversial experiments in the history of psychology. Conducted in the early 1960s, this study aimed to investigate the extent to which people would obey authority figures, even if it meant harming others.

The primary conclusion of Milgram’s research, which is supported by extensive empirical evidence, is indeed option (b): “Average people will harm others if told to do so by an authority figure.” This conclusion emerged from the detailed and carefully designed experiments that Milgram conducted.

In Milgram’s experiment, participants were recruited to take part in what they believed was a study on learning and memory. They were instructed to administer electric shocks to another person, who was actually a confederate (an actor), whenever that person answered a question incorrectly.

The key element here was that the participants were told to increase the shock intensity with each wrong answer, eventually reaching potentially lethal levels. The authority figure in this scenario was the experimenter, who instructed the participants to continue shocking the other person, even when they expressed distress or the shocks became extremely painful.

The results of Milgram’s study were both shocking and disturbing. It was found that a significant proportion of participants, approximately 65%, were willing to continue administering shocks to the highest levels, even when the person on the receiving end pleaded for them to stop and displayed signs of extreme distress.

These participants followed the authority figure’s instructions, demonstrating a disturbing willingness to harm another person in the name of obedience.

Several factors contribute to the correctness of option (b) as the primary conclusion of Milgram’s obedience research:

Empirical Evidence: Milgram’s experiments provided substantial empirical evidence to support this conclusion. The high percentage of participants who were willing to harm others under the influence of an authority figure demonstrated the powerful impact of authority on human behavior.

Replicability: Milgram’s findings have been replicated in various forms and across different cultures, further confirming the generalizability of this conclusion. These replications have consistently shown that people from various backgrounds and contexts can be influenced to harm others if directed to do so by an authority figure.

Ethical Implications: Milgram’s research raised profound ethical concerns about the potential for ordinary individuals to commit harmful acts when instructed by authority figures. This conclusion has had a lasting impact on discussions surrounding ethics in research and real-world situations, such as military obedience and ethical decision-making in organizations.

Now, let’s explore why the other options are not correct:

a) “What we sense and what we perceive vary according to culture, race, and gender.”

This option is not the primary conclusion of Milgram’s obedience research. While it is true that culture, race, and gender can influence how people perceive and interpret situations, Milgram’s study primarily focused on the influence of authority figures on obedience, rather than variations in perception based on these factors.

c) “Our mothers have an enormous impact on our personality.”

This option is unrelated to Milgram’s obedience research. Milgram’s experiments did not investigate the impact of maternal influence on personality development. Instead, they centered on the role of authority figures and obedience to their commands.

d) “Everyday behavior can be explained by instincts developed in our ancestral population.”

This option is not a conclusion of Milgram’s research either. His experiments did not delve into the realm of explaining behavior in terms of instincts developed in ancestral populations. Milgram’s focus was on the immediate influence of authority figures on individuals’ actions.

In summary, Stanley Milgram’s obedience research yielded the primary conclusion that average individuals are susceptible to obeying authority figures, even if it means causing harm to others.

This conclusion was based on robust empirical evidence, has been replicated in various contexts, and continues to be relevant in discussions about ethics and obedience in contemporary society. The other options presented do not accurately reflect the focus or findings of Milgram’s research.

Smirti

Leave a Comment