For years, conditions inside the United States’ only federal supermax facility were largely a mystery. Manadel al-Jamadi, a prisoner at Abu Ghraib prison, died after a CIA officer and a private contractor interrogated and tortured him in November 2003. Philip Zimbardo's website about his classic study. Contains a 42 page slideshow with videoclips of the original experiment with Zimbardo's commentary, points for.

Archives and past articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, and Philly.com. The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram.

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia. The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject is led to believe that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality there were no such punishments.

Being separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro- shock generator, which played pre- recorded sounds for each shock level. They measured the willingness of study participants, men from a diverse range of occupations with varying levels of education, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience; the experiment found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of people were prepared to obey, albeit unwillingly, even if apparently causing serious injury and distress. Milgram first described his research in 1. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.

Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: ? Could we call them all accomplices? These three people fill three distinct roles: the Experimenter (an authoritative role), the Teacher (a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter), and the Learner (the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher).

The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said . The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read .

The experimenter told the participants this was to ensure that the . In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner.

The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. Download The Emoji Movie Shit (2017) Movies more. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 1.

If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair. In reality, there were no shocks.

After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electroshock generator, which played prerecorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage- level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease. Some test subjects paused at 1.

Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 4. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, . All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 1. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock. They predicted that by the 3.

Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' . The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority. The level of obedience, .

There were also variations tested involving groups. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta- analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that while the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages ranged from 2.

US studies (6. 1%) was close to the one for non- US studies (6. He also produced a series of five social psychology films, some of which dealt with his experiments. In Milgram's defense, 8. Milgram repeatedly received offers of assistance and requests to join his staff from former participants.

Six years later (at the height of the Vietnam War), one of the participants in the experiment sent correspondence to Milgram, explaining why he was glad to have participated despite the stress: While I was a subject in 1. I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority .. To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority's demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself .. I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience ..

Others have argued that the ethical debate has diverted attention from more serious problems with the experiment's methodology. Australian psychologist Gina Perry found an unpublished paper in Milgram's archives that shows Milgram's own concern with how believable the experimental set- up was to subjects involved. Milgram asked his assistant to compile a breakdown of the number of participants who had seen through the experiments. This unpublished analysis indicated that many subjects suspected that the experiment was a hoax. In the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, a participant in the 1. Yale University, wrote about his early withdrawal as a . She reported that three quarters of the former subjects she interviewed thought they had actually shocked the actor, and that the official debriefing specifications were only at the minimum level required at the time and so did not involve .

However, the Holocaust perpetrators were fully aware of their hands- on killing and maiming of the victims. The laboratory subjects themselves did not know their victims and were not motivated by racism. On the other hand, the Holocaust perpetrators displayed an intense devaluation of the victims through a lifetime of personal development. Those serving punishment at the lab were not sadists, nor hate- mongers, and often exhibited great anguish and conflict in the experiment, unlike the designers and executioners of the Final Solution (see Holocaust trials), who had a clear . Meanwhile, the Holocaust lasted for years with ample time for a moral assessment of all individuals and organizations involved. While it may well account for the dutiful destructiveness of the dispassionate bureaucrat who may have shipped Jews to Auschwitz with the same degree of routinization as potatoes to Bremerhaven, it falls short when one tries to apply it to the more zealous, inventive, and hate- driven atrocities that also characterized the Holocaust. She found, contrary to the popular version, that there is a .

She concludes, that many subjects didn't in fact believe in the reality of the experiments, that . On the Holocaust connection, Perry writes: .