then placed in a room in front of a shock generator and told that he was the "teacher". The "teacher then watched as the "learner", an actor, was led to a chair that strongly resembled a small electric chair and strapped into it. The teacher was then required by the experimenter to read word pairs to the learner. If the learner could not respond with the correct answer in a set period of time, the teacher would be told to administer increasing levels of shocks (from 15 to 450 volts and labelled from "slight shock" to Severe Shock - Danger" with the two highest voltages rated ‘XXX’". This experiment was designed so that the teacher would have to make a clear break away from the authority figure, the experimenter, in order to stop performing shocks.Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but, it revealed some extremely important findings. Findings showed that "two-thirds of this studies participants fall into the category of ‘obedient’ subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes" (obedience to authority).After the release of his findings, many in the filed of psychology expressed concern for the ethics of Milgram’s design. One of the more vocal opponents was Diana Baumrind. Her concern was for the welfare of the participants and whether or not there was adequate measures to protect the participants. Milgram defends his experiment by explaining how more then adequately cared for the participants were. In a follow up survey, 84% of the subjects had positive feelings about being part of the research. A year after the study, Milgram connected the subjects to an impartial psychiatrist. Although he found, that extreme stress had been experienced by the subjects, no permeant trauma could be found to exist. There are also methodological considerations. Did the participants believe that the victim was really suffering? The...
