Society prefers some personalities over others. He expects everyone to excel academically, have high resilience, be good parents, have stable mental health, live a life free of stress/aggression, etc. Characteristics that people recognize and praise are more likely to make you engage in socially unacceptable behavior if you are told to do so. Stanley Milgram attempted to decide whether Adolf Eichmann was involved in the horrendous deeds of the Holocaust because of his complete and unconditional obedience to his superior authority. Milgram, who also thought it might be due to internal thoughts, later agreed to accelerate the change from internal behavioral justifications to environmental and situational variables and considered personality as an essential indicator of change in obedient behavior (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). His focus has shifted to authority figures and how they impact people. This study shows how obedience in an experiment similar to Milgram's is predicted by a person's personality. He carried out his research with the help of television programs. The research was conducted primarily to test the connection between personality traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness with obedience, which are the two main traits that show behavioral receptivity to normative expectations. Agreeableness is one of the big 5 personality traits. An individual who scores high in agreeableness is known to be very friendly and empathetic. While those who score zero on the scale are known to have a reserved and antisocial personality. Consciousness is being aware of your thoughts, emotions, actions, feelings, and the people around you. Consciousness is something that changes spontaneously. For example, you might think about how nice the weather is or how wrinkled your shirt is. And then it might move on to the book you recently purchased or making breakfast for your kids. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay For his experiment, he asked 66 contestants in the age range of 26 to 54 to take part in a television show. a $4 fee was also paid. all were informed that the study was about learning and the effects of punishment on learning. they had to draw straws that had the role of competitor (pupil or teacher). what they didn't know was that their roles were already predetermined. it was a fixed lottery. the experiment involved 3 people: a student (volunteer/actor), a teacher (naive participant) and the examiner in the gray coat as an authority figure. The student was tied to the chair in a separate room while the teacher and examiner were in a different room. the teacher had to ask the student questions relating to the word pairs and was told that for every mistake made by the student he would be shocked and the tension would have to be further increased. if contestants were asked about the shock, they were told, "there is no permanent tissue damage." the student deliberately makes errors in repeating the words read by the teachers. and the teacher gives a shock for every wrong answer. if the competitors hesitated or did not obey, they were given the 4 shots in the same order1.' continue with "2."the experiment requires that you continue with "3."it is essential that you continue with "4." you have no choice but to move forward '