The Perils Of Obedience By Milgram And The Stanford Prison Experiment

When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.

The Milgram experiment was conducted in 1963 by Stanley Milgram in order to focus on the conflict between obedience to authority and to personal conscience. The experiment consisted of 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, and who’s jobs ranged from unskilled to professional. The roles of this experiment included a learner, teacher, and researcher. The participant was deemed the teacher and was in the same room as the researcher. The learner, who was also a paid actor, was put into the next room and strapped into an electric chair. The teacher administered a test to the learner, and for each question that was incorrect, the learner was to receive an electric shock by the teacher, increasing the level of shock each time. The shock generator ranged from

Stanley Milgram's "The Perils of Obedience" and Philip G. Zimbardo's "The Stanford Prison Experiment" both effectively use experiments to discuss factors that effect one's obedience to authority. Milgram's experiment involves a test subject, also called the teacher, who is asked by an authority figure, or the "experimenter" to give out question to a learner. If the learner answers incorrectly, the teacher is asked to deliver shocks to the student that increase in voltage each time. Conflict arises when the learner begins to cry out in pain, and the teacher must decide to stop and listen to the learner's pleas, or obey the experimenter. Both the experimenter and the learner are actors, while the teacher remains oblivious to the experiment. The results show twenty-five out of forty learners obeying the authority to the end, administrating 450 volts (Milgram 80). Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment consists of twenty-one college aged males, ten of which are assigned as prisoners, and eleven of which are assigned as guards. The subjects are placed in a mock prison, where they acted in ways they did not know was possible, even though they are aware of being in an experiment: the guards frequently harass and torment the prisoners in various manners due to being deindividualized. Though Milgram explains the power of the situation causing obedience more fairly, Zimbardo more effectively explains the impact of wanting to please others. Though Milgram and Zimbardo both logical

The purpose of Stanley Milgram writing his “The Perils of Obedience,” is to show to what extent an individual would contradict his/her moral convictions because of the orders of an authority figure (Milgram 78). He constructed an experiment wherein an experimenter instructs a naïve subject to inflict a series of shocks of increasing voltage on a protesting actor. Contrary to Milgram’s expectations, about sixty percent of the subjects administered the highest voltage shock. (Milgram 80). According to Milgram, experiment variations disproved the theory that the subjects were sadists. (Milgram 85). Milgram states that although the subjects are against their actions, they desire to please the experimenter, and they often

For years, many have questioned the so called “evil” that seems to be inside of people. There have been multiple experiments set to find the answers to these questions. Although, the real question is, why do people act the way they do? Rob Reiner, director of the movie A Few Good Men is about Daniel Kaffee, a military lawyer, who is assigned to defend two US Marines accused of murdering Pfc. William Santiago. With the help of Lt. Sam Weinberg and Lt. Cdr. JoAnn Galloway, Kaffe brings the accused Marines, Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey, into court to prove that they are innocent of murder because they were “just following orders” (Reiner). However, why did Dawson and Downey follow the orders, if they knew the result would be hurting another? Maybe it was because of the situation, or how obedient the two Marines were, or many it is just the plain and simple evil at work. Nevertheless, two articles that mention the experiments to test this is “The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo and “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram. The results gathered from these experiments confirms the belief of hidden wickedness inside human beings. Plus Zimbardo himself made an hypothesis that good people can become evil in the blink of an eye. He based this hypothesis on his prison experiment. Both of these authors addresses how their experiments determine how obedience and the situation can determine the outcome, which just supports

In Maria Konnikova’s “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” she reveals what she believes to be the reality of sociologist Philip Zimbardo’s controversial study: its participants were not “regular” people.

As Christians, we tend to believe that everyone has the same worldview as us. We believe that everyone thinks the way we do leading him or her to do the right thing. We assume the best and forget the worst. However, it becomes painstakingly real that is not the case in our world today. We are constantly faced with ethical issues in our profession and everyday life. Although we would like to believe that people always do the right thing that is not the case. This reality hits us in cases like the Tuskegee study, the obedience to authority study, and the Stanford prison experiment.

tudied and observed and their behavior was measured with several methods. The results that the researchers found were fascinating. A breakdown of ethics and moral were almost instantaneous. The group with the power would come to abuse it and the group who had had their power taken away had become docile and submissive. The researchers concluded that the penal systems a whole was flawed in its ways of action and application of the treatment of its inmates and in the training of its guards. They also concluded that the psychology breakdown in this confined and control experiment was crucial in understanding the human psyche and how it handles certain situations.

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

The Stanford Prison Experiment had many issues that started a chain of problems within the experiment. Ethical issues that challenged the subjects who partook in the experiment moral values and behavior. Many of the steps taken in the experiment were unethical, one being the fact that the subjects were arrested without consent. Furthermore, the subjects were dehumanized and taunted, and humiliated which tested them physically and mentally. They were told to do push-ups as a punishment and often with a foot on their backs. After a rebellion the unethical behavior from the subjects who were guards increased. Beds along with proper use of toilet facilities were taken away which is deemed extremely unethical. Harassment and intimidation were pretty frequent among guard subjects to make prison subjects more dependent on them. The psychological harm of the subjects was not taken into consideration and it is seen from Prisoners #819 and #8612 as they began to crumble mentally.

The Excerpt “The Peril of Obedience by Stanley Milgram discusses an experiment testing on individuals through cruel and unmoral experiments. After reading Milgram’s text about the experiments conducted to see if individuals would compile with authority even if the command was unmoral. Stanley Milgram, an excerpt From “The Perils of obedience”, states that Milgram is making the following statement concerning the condition of the experiment: “This condition of the experiment undermines another commonly offered explanation of the subjects’ behavior- that those who shocked the victim at the most severe levels came only from sadistic fringe of society” (Milgram 699). By stating this Milgram explains that even if it means harming other human beings

The Stanford Prison Experiment was to determine how conformity and obedience could result in people behaving in ways that are counter to how they would at on their own. The main goal of the experiment was to see how social norms and social convections might influence the behavior of participants who are playing the roles of prisoners and prison guards. The study really elaborates on the relationship between the abuser and the abused. It is interesting to see how easily the human psyche gives repetitive abuse and is conditioned to receive it and accept it. This paper will discuss the motives, procedures, findings, ethical issues, and informed consent the Stanford Prison Experiment concluded on.

Multiple arguments are made about Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments. Diana Baumrind, author of “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience” and a former psychologist at the University of California in Berkeley, strongly believes that Milgram’s experiments should not have taken place. Baumrind focuses on the aftermath of the experiment and how even when subjects were told that the screams they heard were merely recordings, participants experienced lasting effects (Baumrind 90). Ian Parker, author of “Obedience” and a writer for the New Yorker, also believes the trauma experienced by participants was unethical; some participants suffered from heart attacks after the experiment, and others were in therapy several years later when Milgram conducted a survey (Parker 98).

In “The Stanford Prison Experiment” Philip G. Zimbardo discusses an experiment he conducted, which consisted of college students portraying guards and prisoners in a simulated prison. Shortly after the experiment began, it was stopped, due to the mistreatment of the prisoners and the overall psychological abuse inflicted on them by the prison guards (Zimbardo 116). In “The Perils of Obedience” Stanley Milgram writes about a controversial experiment in which he requests volunteers to assist him in shocking participants who answer incorrectly to certain questions on the opposite side of a wall. The shock that the volunteers believe they are administering could cause great harm or even be deadly to the participants. After Milgram conducts

Upon review it appears that clearly the reactions of the guards and prisoners in the Stanford prison experiment supported Milgram’s obedience theory. However, there are several key components of the prison experiment that differed from Milgram’s own experiment. For example, the ad itself may have helped create some of the behaviors observed. Milgram’s experiment utilized the same media to accrue participants, but specifically called for participants take part in a memory study; this presentation is relatively innocuous and truly not entirely representative of what Milgram’s intentions were. Because the ad Milgram ran did not reveal its purpose or describe the setting in which it would take place, participants walked into the experiment with an open mind, unsure what to expect. Zimbardo’s experiment, on the other hand, stated specifically it was a prison experiment. By declaring this in their ad, were the experimenters already implanting their subject’s behavior? Psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland asked this question in a 2007 study. To test the ad itself, they recreated the original ad as well as an alternate version that omitted the words “prison life.” They discovered through testing that applicants who applied for the prison study showed significantly higher tendencies toward aggressiveness, narcissism, authoritarianism and social dominance while scoring lower on empathy and altruism. (Konnikova, 1) The study is also wildly popular in its portrayal of the