Stanford Prison Experiment With Classic Milgram Footage

Stanford Prison Experimentwith Classic Milgram Footage Httpswwwy

Stanford Prison Experiment (with classic Milgram footage) Which behaviors are examples of obedience, compliance, or conformity? Why did we see these findings? Do you think you would have delivered the shocks? Why or why not? What kind of guard or prisoner would you have been? Why? Was this study ethical? Why or why not? What knowledge do we gain from this “experiment”? What other examples from your real life might this apply to? Do you think knowledge of these studies might impact you in your real life?

Paper For Above instruction

The Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s Obedience Study are two of the most infamous social psychology experiments conducted in the 20th century. Both studies investigate the influence of situational factors on individual behavior, particularly focusing on obedience, conformity, and compliance within authority structures. These experiments reveal significant insights into human psychology, but they have also raised profound ethical questions regarding the treatment of participants and the implications of such research.

The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, aimed to understand how individuals conform to roles of authority and submission within a simulated prison environment. Participants were randomly assigned as guards or prisoners, and within days, the experiment spiraled into psychological distress and abuse. Guards displayed increasingly authoritarian and aggressive behaviors, while prisoners showed signs of stress and helplessness. The behaviors exemplify obedience and conformity; guards conformed to their perceived roles of authority, often acting cruelly, while prisoners conformed to their roles of submission and compliance. These behaviors were likely influenced by situational factors such as the perceived authority of the guards, the dehumanization of prisoners, and the institutionalized environment. The findings suggest that ordinary individuals can commit harmful acts under authoritative influence, especially when situational norms support such behavior.

Similarly, Milgram’s obedience study, conducted in 1961, demonstrates the power of authority in eliciting compliance. Participants believed they were administering electric shocks to a learner whenever an incorrect answer was provided. Despite visible distress and protest from the learner, a significant majority of participants continued to administer shocks when prompted by an authority figure. The behaviors shown here are emblematic of obedience; participants obeyed authority figures despite moral reservations, often influenced by cues such as the authority’s commanding presence and the experimenter’s insistence. The findings highlight humans’ propensity to follow orders, especially in contexts where authority is authoritative and perceived as legitimate.

Reflecting on personal involvement, it is challenging to say whether I would have delivered the shocks or behaved as the guards or prisoners. Ethical considerations aside, the experiments reveal the strong influence of authority and environment on behavior. I believe I would struggle with the moral dilemma presented by Milgram’s shocks, questioning whether to obey authority or resist and act morally. As a guard or prisoner, I might fear the repercussions of rebellion or conform overtly to avoid conflict, though personal values may influence my stance.

The ethicality of these studies, particularly the Stanford Prison Experiment, has been widely debated. Critics argue that both experiments caused psychological distress without adequate safeguards, violating principles of informed consent and participant well-being. The Stanford study was shut down prematurely due to awareness of the harm inflicted, illustrating ethical shortcomings. Nonetheless, these experiments have significantly contributed to our understanding of human behavior, revealing how situational pressures can override personal morals and ethical standards. They demonstrate the importance of ethical guidelines, including informed consent, debriefing, and safeguarding participants from harm in psychological research.

The insights gained from these studies extend beyond academic understanding. In daily life, they underpin the dynamics within hierarchical organizations such as workplaces, military, or law enforcement, where authority figures influence subordinate behavior. They also shed light on phenomena like bullying, compliance, and group conformity, which are prevalent in schools, workplaces, and social groups. Recognizing how authority and situational factors shape behavior enables individuals to critically evaluate their actions and resist undue influence when necessary. For instance, understanding obedience can help prevent followers from blindly following destructive orders, fostering ethical decision-making.

Knowledge of these experiments impacts personal and societal levels. By becoming aware of how authority influences behavior, individuals can cultivate moral resilience and critical thinking skills. This awareness encourages questioning authority and resisting conformity when ethical principles are challenged. On a societal scale, such knowledge advocates for ethical standards in research and reinforces the importance of checks and balances in institutions that wield power. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of education on social influence, encouraging a more conscientious and ethically aware populace.

In conclusion, the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s obedience study provide crucial insights into the power of situational influences on human behavior. While ethically controversial, their findings have deepened our understanding of obedience, conformity, and compliance. Recognizing these psychological dynamics enables individuals and institutions to foster environments that promote ethical behavior and resist undue authority. Ultimately, understanding these studies equips us to be more critically aware of the social forces shaping our actions in everyday life.

References

  • BBC. (2015). The Milgram obedience experiments. BBC Archive. https://www.bbc.com/archive
  • Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.1.1
  • Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97.
  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
  • Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.
  • Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
  • Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(4), 645-660.
  • Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978.
  • Ryan, K. (2004). Ethical considerations in psychological experiments: Lessons from history. Ethics & Behavior, 14(2), 127-137.
  • O’Leary, M. R. (2010). Ethical considerations in social psychology research. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 5(1), 44-56.

Related Assignments