Discusses the different views of two authors on obedience. The articles discussed are Stanley Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" and Diana Baumrind's "Review of Milgram's Experiment."

Summarizes a study by Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, reported in "The Perils of Obedience," suggesting that under a special set of circumstances the obedience we naturally show authority figures can transform us into agents of terror or monsters towards humanity.

Questions if Milgrims study of obedience can be considered ethical when compared to modern British guidelines.

Evaluation how certain obedience studies lack in experimental and ecological validity and also mundane realism. Describes Milgram's study of obedience as a classic example of a study that lacked in experimental validity and also in mundane realism. Also examines Hofling's study and Bickman's study on obedience

Stanley Milgram's article "The Perils of Obedience" tells of his experiments to test the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. In those experiments, Milgram found that the majority of people will fulfill the request of an authoritative figure even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong.

Discusses the Stanley Milgram experiments, which focused on obedience to authority, and the lengths to which a subject would go, when prodded by someone in there authority.

Summarizes the article "Obedience" by Ian Parker, an author who critiques the Milgram Experiments. Addresses the ethical issues of the Milgram experiments.