But the conclusion of Milgram's experiment was different from what they predicted. The majority of the subjects obeyed the experiment to the end. There were several reactions to the experiment. Some people showed signs of worry or stress, others laughed, and some showed no signs of distress throughout the experiment. Some subjects often felt satisfaction by obeying superiors. This shows that many people obey authority to show that they are doing a good job, and perceived as loyal by the superiors or society, which ever the case may be. One hypothesis used to explain this experiment is one of hidden aggression. According to this concept, people suppress aggressive behavior and the experiment allows them to express this anger. Therefore when someone is placed in a situation where he has control over another person, then he is able to punish him or her repeatedly, all demented and hidden anger will be revealed. Milgram believes the most basic lesson of this experiment is that common people with no aggression will do their jobs and become instruments of an evil operation. Most important, very few people have the constitution to express their beliefs, even when ruinous effects of their behavior are apparent. This was explained in the experiment when many subjects showed no signs of distress while do the superiors orders.
In the article "Review of Stanley Milgram" Baumrind, who is a psychologist works at the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley. She totally disagrees with Milgram's experiment. She uses the word "unethical" in several examples to prove her point of view. The first example she brings up is that the experiment can't be done in the laboratory because the subject will be unfamiliar with the surroundings. In other words, the subjects were more prone to be obedient because the situation was constructed as to not tolerate any disobedience, which is not fair.
