Stanley Milgram By Chelsea Washburn
Early Life Born on August 15, 1933 Stanley named after grandfather named Simcha, which is Hebrew for joy Parents Samuel (baker) and Adele Milgram Fought in WWI POW Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe Met in US and married in 1931
Siblings Older sister Marjorie born a year and a half earlier Didn’t like Stanley at first Younger brother Joel born five years later Played pranks with Joel Sodium bomb and other trouble-making schemes
Childhood Moved a lot South Bronx Schooling PS77 on Ward Avenue High intelligence (158) Often played pranks
Childhood Two noteworthy experiences Power of groups – witnessed protesters Criticism for measuring something without due regard to others – in this case, trying to measure the distance between a set of beds and hurting his cousin Foreshadowing later experiences Relationship with parents Loved his father Liked it when people compared him to his father
Childhood WWII Father did not want drafted so family moved to NJ tempoarily Worked for war effort Religiosity Family not religiously observant, but identified strongly with Jewish culture Bar Mitzvah Expressed concern over the war
College Father’s bakery fell apart due to dispute with his brother so he bought his own 1950 – Queens College Liked women… a lot 1953 – toured France Spoke French well Father died December 11, 1953 Mother found work in a bakery Worried about his own possibly premature death Switched from political science to psychology Friend Bernard Fried had influence
Harvard – Fall 1954 Ford Foundation Scholarship Allport – mentor Social Relations Program Jerome Bruner – taught cognitive processes Financial aid worries and regain Solomon Asch and conformity 1956 – research assistant to Asch
Dissertation Part 1 1957-58 National character and conformity Variation on Asch’s experiment, but recordings were used in the place of physically present confederates Disliked hypothesis-testing Allport as supervisor Norway Culturally very group-based Conditions – college students First Condition – 62% conformity Baseline Condition – 56% Aircraft Condition – 50% Attributed to safety signals on airplanes Private Condition – 50% Answers not given publically for the group to hear Later: Censure (confrontation) Condition – 75% Initial plan for US comparison changed to France Other Norway experiments Bell Condition (different bell tones) – 69% Requested repetition Repeated Aircraft and Censure Conditions with factory workers Differences not statistically significant Ethicality
Dissertation Part 2 1957-58 Paris, France Less conformity: 50% compared to Norwegian 62% Baseline – 50% Aircraft – 48% Private – 34% Censure – 59% Bell – 58% Fluctuations similar More independent
Asch’s Offer Help with book Move to Princeton Tough time juggling everything, including the book and his own work
Move to Yale Move to Yale Stanley’s feelings about Harvard Harvard, in Stanley’s eyes remained the pillar of academic excellence Everything else was sub-par
Milgram’s life during his most (in)famous experiment: The Shock Machine – Obedience to Authority
The Reasoning Sketch of shock machine Issues with Buss’ machine and his work on aggression Creation of shock machine Pilot Test Grant Proposal “Responsibility to Subjects” Told to use regular people
Marriage 1961 – Met wife, Sasha Menkin Born in Bronx Dancer Liked art
Overview of the Shock Machine Statistics and elements August and September 1961 Final machine Experimenter Subject Pilot done where learner and subject were separated by a screen where shadow was visible Learner https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=xOYLCy5PVgM
Conditions Remote Condition – Not visible, protest after 300 volts, then no more responses, pound on wall at 315 volts, and then silence – no answer treated as wrong – with heart condition No subject stopped before 300 volts 65 % to full voltage Voice-Feedback Condition – still separate room, but learner used increasing level of complaints (recorded) – without heart condition 62.5% to full voltage Proximity Condition – learner few feet from subject (complaints acted) 40% to full voltage Touch-Proximity Condition – distance to zero – learner had to put hand on plate to receive shock, noncompliance resulted in forced shock by subject 30% to full voltage All groups were male except one Females performed on par with their male counterparts
Discussion How do you think people in modern times would fare in Milgram’s experiment? Would you go to 450 volts? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwqNP9HRy7Y
Post-Experiment Film Obedience – 1962 Filmed reactions of participants Continued skepticism concerning Buss Buss had developed a similar machine to Milgram about the same time as Milgram’s experiment, although Buss was studing aggression, not obedience
Backlash Complaint to APA by member of Yale Psychology Department Ethics Milgram used debriefing Milgram’s diary at first shows evidence of self -doubt, but that eventually blew away Martin Orne – said subjects enter lab in cooperative mood and that they eventually found out shocks were fake Milgram’s response: “Orne’s suggestion that the subjects only feigned sweating, trembling, and stuttering to please the experimenters pathetically detached from reality, equivalent to the statement that hemophiliacs bleed to keep their physicians busy.”
Discussion Do you think Milgram’s experiment was unethical? It can be very hard to get an experiment passed by the IRB nowadays, even for the most benign experiments. Have we gone to far? Is it wrong to make people feel distress, even if that distress comes from learning something about themselves?
News Coverage “Behavioral Study of Obedience” which was the first article on the experiments was published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Remote Condition More backlash Milgram’s post -surveys Engaging style of writing
Return to Harvard Three-year appointment as an assistant professor in the Department of Social Relations Put Harvard in high regard Published poems and such Move to Cambridge First child – Michele born November 1964 Second child – Marc born January 1967 Family man Liberal, democratic causes Against war For disarmament Surprise Experiments Thought he was joking when he ran into a class and said that Kennedy was dead – 1963
Cambridge Years Lost-Letter Technique Measuring Community Attitudes Small World Phenomenon Based upon a conversation between Everett Rodgers and a student named Pedro that somehow had a connection brought some light to the phenomenon Six Degrees of Separation Problems Publishing Not using journals A Changed Social Relations Department Paul Hollander (friend) – Sociologist Disagreement on issues such as Communism rather than Nazism, opposition to Vietnam and no opposition, etc. Was not promoted at Harvard - 1967 Hans Tach said his teaching style was too harsh and debilitating Traumatic for him Six Day War Family supported Israel
Looking for Work Stanley created division and controversy Wanted an urban, not rural atmosphere, so he didn’t accept offers from places like Cornell Howard Leventhal helped him Leventhal was recruited by the City University of New York’s (CUNY) Graduate Center by Silvan Tomkins Told Tomkins he’d only accept if Milgram was offered Ultimately, Leventhal accepted an offer from UW-Madison since Harvard was keeping Stanley in suspense for too long while they made their decision to promote him. However, CUNY still made an offer to Stanley and he accepted
CUNY, for the rest of his years Conflicted feelings – obviously not Harvard Children’s development Michele growing up fast CUNY itself Graduate school fairly new Dean Mina Rees Milgram as an “equal opportunity insulter” as told by student John Sabini Perks of being a genius Irwin Katz – friend Polarized opinions Why? Continuing problem with drugs like amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana Good chairman for doctoral dissertations – very helpful and acted as a student’s advocate
CUNY Experiments The Kitty Genovese Attack and Urban Psychology Concept of “overload” Mental Maps of Cities Power of Norms Sasha’s mother commented on how no one gave her a seat on the bus/subway, but she didn’t ask for one Stanley used his students to test No justification condition – 56% gave up seats, 12.3% compromised by moving over Trivial justification condition – 41.9% Overheard Condition – 36.6% Student Harold Takooshian continued with Urban research Familiar Strangers (people who saw each other every day but didn’t speak) 47% wondered about them 32% said they had a slight inclanation
Recommend
More recommend
