Obedience to Authority Essay

In 1971, Philip George Zimbardo—psychologist and professor at Stanford University conducted prison experiment to test the effect of situations. In contrast with prediction as lengthy and boring, the experiment’s result shocked the world. The Stanford Prison Experiment has indicated the significant power of roles, or situations, on human behaviors; thus, brings about many influences on society. According to Zimbardo in “ Obedience to Authority,” he asked the students during the spring term to reverse role and lecture him a topic that would interest him.

Stanley Milgram, conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. According to the study Migram suggested “that obedience we naturally show authority figures can transform us into agents of terror” (Migram, 1974/1994, p. 214). Milgram experiment was developed for the justification of the act of genocide in World War II. Many of the accomplices in the Holocaust said they were following in order given by Adolf Eichmann. Obedience to superiors is built onto the history of civilized society, and no culture worthy of the name has existed without stressing the respect that is due to legitimate authority of the duties of those in command. Milgram study provides information that supports that

She begins recounting the notorious details, how innocent college students labeled prisoners and guards displayed psychological abuse after only six days of confinement, and makes reference to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and Abu Ghraib, where similar maltreatment, perceived or real, was conducted on civilians by civilians. She addresses and refutes the accepted belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could become a tyrant when given or instructed by a source of authority. Instead, she suggests that Zimbardo’s inquiry points toward but does not land on one exact conclusion. She explains the influence of the setting, the presentation of the roles, Zimbardo’s participation, and perhaps a sense of expectation felt, all of which can be reflected in the shocking behavior of a few guards. She argues that it should not have been so shocking. Konnikova discredits the neutrality of Zimbardo’s experiment by insisting that people who would respond to an ad for a psychological study of prison life were not “normal” people. However, with her diction and choice of evidence she displaces the study's culpability in a way that ultimately blurs and undermines her claim.

A classic experiment on the natural obedience of individuals was designed and tested by a Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The test forced participants to either go against their morals or violate authority. For the experiment, two people would come into the lab after being told they were testing memory loss, though only one of them was actually being tested. The unaware individual, called the “teacher” would sit in a separate room, administering memory related questions. If the individual in the other room, the “learner,” gave a wrong answer, the teacher would administer a shock in a series of increasingly painful shocks correlating with the more answers given incorrectly. Milgram set up a recorder

This paper explores seven peer-reviewed articles that analyze the Milgram Experiment and its results on people’s obedience to authority. The articles range from describing the experiment’s origins to analyzing factors that went into the participant’s compliance such as Strain Resolving Mechanisms (SRMs) and pressure binding factors (BFs), and additionally, finding trends in personality that correlate with levels of obedience. In the first official trial, 65% of participants had agreed to press all the buttons in a shock machine that they were led to believe would administer a deadly shock to another person (Russell 2011). This paper analyzes what led to such an infamous high percentage, what it reveals about the human psychology, and how it can apply to the current day.

In 1963, Stanley Milgram completed the Obedience to Authority experiment in which participants were misled to believe that they shocked another human being for each wrong answer, with progressively higher voltages. At one point, the other (nonexistent) person appears to die, and stops responding entirely. A high percentage of people went all the way to the highest voltage. This study has been critiqued for ethical and moral shortcomings. Milgram’s study revealed a rather disturbing ability for humans to carry out significant harm, even causing the death of another person, should they put the responsibility of their actions on an authority figure.

In the Stanford prison experiment the researcher, Philip Zimbardo, thought they were just going to figure out the psychology of prison life. Little did he know this experiment would change the view of roles in society. Humans tend to fall into the role society lays out for us as proven by the Stanford prison experiment. When Zimbardo was planning the experiment, in August of 1971, he was just searching for the psychology of prison life, to see how people act when they are put into a powerless situation.

Stanley Milgram was a Yale psychologist that is famous for conducting the obedience experiments in 1961. Milgram had conducted a series of experiments during the 1960s that were related to obedience. The results of these experiments had demonstrated a disturbing yet powerful view into the power of authority that can exert from it some sort of obedience. Milgram’s experimentation had begun in 1961 after the trail of Adolph Eichmann has started slightly after World War II. Milgram was inspired by Eichmann’s defense’s premise that the man was simply following orders that resulted in the death of millions of Jews. Milgram conducted the experiment with the participation of forty men that were recruited through newspaper advertisement. Milgram had used paid participation method in which participants were paid a sum of $4.50. Milgram was to use a shock generator that started with 30 volts and increased with 15 volts up to the maximum of 450 volts. The main switches were labeled with terms such as: slight shock, moderate shock, danger, severe shock, and XXX. The participants were named as teachers who were to deliver a shock to students as punishment for incorrect answer to questions. The teacher participants had believed that they were delivering shock to students, but in actuality there was a bit of deception as students were just pretending to be shocked. With the progression of the experiment the teachers would hear the pleas of their participants to be released,

When we see people doing bad things we assume it is because they are bad people. Social Psychologist Philip Zimbardo would argue that this isn’t true. In April 2004 disturbing and graphic pictures surfaced, showing American soldiers mentally and physically abusing Iraqi prisoners held at the Abu Ghraib prison located in Bagdad. Looking at the photos that was surfaced, it looks strikingly familiar to those in the Stanford prison experiment that was done many years ago. The prisoners had bags over their heads and were subjected to all kinds of sexual and inhumane humiliation. The military went on the defence saying “those officers were a few bad apples.” To understand why the military soldiers at the Abu Grahib prison abused the Iraqi prisoners, we need to look back at the lessons of Philip Zimbardo’s prison experiment and Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment. The results of these experiments showed that there are a set of social psychological factors that can make ordinary people do things they could have never imagined doing. It shows how people respond when placed in cruel environments without clear rules, do bad things. I will look at Zimbardo’s case of ‘Good apples in bad barrels.’ And I will try to understand what lead to the abuses that occurred within the walls of Abu Ghraib.

In 1963, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a disputable, but highly revered, study on obedience. The experiment was designed to test people’s morals versus an extreme authority, but, as predicted, obedience prevailed. Then in 1973, Philip G. Zimbardo created his own experiment, not unlike Milgram’s, that analyzed the potential of individuals to withstand the pressure of succumbing to an obedient role based on the environment. Both Stanley Milgram, author of “The Perils of Obedience,” and Philip Zimbardo, author of “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” conducted controversial experiments that proved that when an ordinary person was put into a different role it affected their obedience to authority.

In Stanley Milgram 's essay Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority, the self-proclaimed "social psychologist" conducted a study while working as a psychologist at Yale University. The primary goal of Milgram 's experiment was to measure the desire of the participants to shock a learner in a controlled situation. The experiment was based on three primary roles: the authoritative figure, the learner, and the teachers. The authoritative figure instructed the teachers to shock the learner when they answered the question wrong. This form of punishment is typically believed to conflict with personal morals and the main reason for the experiment was to evaluate the teacher 's response to

The results and conclusion of Milgram’s experiment demonstrated an obedience to authority and “do as you are told” mentality. Many subjects showed signs of tension and were uncomfortable delivering the shocks, yet all 40 subjects obeyed up to 300 volts. Sixty three percent of the subjects continued give shocks until the maximum level of 450 volts was reached. Experts predicted that only one to three percent of the participants would continue to deliver shocks, and that these individuals would have to be psychopaths. However, footage of Milgram’s experiment shows 65% of the subjects continued giving shocks, and none stopped when the learner said he had heart trouble (1962). Milgram carried out eighteen variations of his study, altering the situation

During the current events in the world, we tend to believe that we wouldn’t have obeyed a command or a favor that was against who we are and our beliefs. Is true that we wouldn't obey or we are oblivious of how we will act? Psychologists before Milgram’s experiment expected most people will refuse to obey rising the amount of shock, but the reality was way off as more than 65% of the participants delivered the maximum shock. What are the reasons behind the surprising level of obedience observed in Milgram’s experiment specifically, and in real life in general? In my opinion, no one can determine if they would be more or less likely to fall prey to obedience, especially if they don’t have any psychological disorders.

I believe it is safe to say that the subjects of any legitimate state have an obligation to at obey their governing bodies. Underlying my own obedience to my country's laws are a number of reasons - an understanding of my obligation to take responsibility for my own actions, a recognition of my government's authority over me, a belief that the laws of my country are well-founded, and a fear of the consequences of disobeying said laws. Without laws, a society would quickly crumble into disorder and chaos, unless its entire population is benevolent and selfless. And since my beliefs about human nature run contrary to the idea that we all want what is best for each other, I don't believe that said chaos can be avoided without a respected

One of the most known study of obedience was conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram (“Milgram”). This experiment was focusing on the effects of people’s obedience to authority and their own conscious thoughts and beliefs when it came to harming another person (“Milgram”). Milgram advertised for male participants of varying ages and jobs to be in a Yale University study (“Milgram”). The participant was paired with another person who each had to draw straws to see who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner” (“Milgram”). However, this draw was fixed that so the teacher would always be the participant and the learner would