Zimbardo
The Stanford County Prison experiment by Zimbardo (1971) supports Milgram’s study. Zimbardo (1973) experiment took place in a pretend prison house which was created in the basement of Stanford University. This was to investigate the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner/prison guard. Participants in both studies had a difficult time ending the experiment. The participants felt they did not want to appear inconsistent or leave the experiment. Participant’s behaviour was in control by social/professional forces and environmental contingences, rather than their own personality traits or character power.
Bickman (1974) put together a field study where an experimenter approached people on the street and asked them to carry out small jobs for them, which would put them out of their own routine. The experimenter was dressed …show more content…
either in a jacket and tie or a guard’s uniform. Bickman's results showed participants would follow the orders if the experimenter approached them in a uniform (psychlotron, n.d).
Orne & Holland (1968) blame Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism’. The participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner was not really receiving electric shocks. Research supports Milgram’s evidence, that without deception he would have had incorrect results. Rosenhan (1966) copied the study and people had heard of Milgram’s experiment and Rosenhan’s results were 70% as participants thought it was true. Milgram in his defence again explained if the participants were to know the truth that the experiment was not real, the results would have been different and this would have affected the end result.
The ethical concerns in the experiment were also argued by Baumrind (1964) ‘…. The feelings and rights of Milgram’s participants have been abused and inadequate measures were taken to protect them from stress and emotional conflict (Gross, 2015). However, in Milgram's defence he argued that participants had agreed to take part and some people could have left if they really wanted to. The participants had also a full
de-briefing and after a year had a follow-up and 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment”, and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved. Ecological validity of the experiment was questioned. People wondered how the results would be different if the experiment was not in a laboratory and in real life. They also criticised the experiment was obedience high due to the setting of Yale University and believed that no one thought they would actually come to any harm because they were in this prestige environment (boudless, n.d). Milgram argued that the realism of the authority figure was no different from being in the laboratory to the outside world. Milgram made variations to the study and one was the change of location to a rundown office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut to explore the difference in results. The rate was 47.5%; the original location had played some part in the results but had not been a crucial factor. Milgram’s findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures across the world and most have come to the same conclusion, some cases see higher obedience. Smith & Bond (1998) highlight with the omission of Jordan (Shanab &Yahya, 1978), most studies have been coordinated in industrial western cultures and we should be careful not to finish with a global mark of social behaviour being recognised. The limited sample which was used for the experiment consists of white middle class American males. Milgram only used this sample as he stated they lived in a democratic society and they were less likely to obey orders. He wanted to see if they were any similarities to the Nazi soldiers in the concentration camps of the Second World War.
Obedience in our society can be deadly and we are likely to follow the orders of an authority figure even if it means hurting an innocent person. Forcing too much obedience can make them too obedient becoming nervous and not showing their own personality. Obedience is essential to follow some standard laws otherwise the world would be in total chaos and it is important when teaching from right to wrong. Milgram’s study had some unethical methods so to this present day it has enabled new guidelines in treatment of research participants. As such this experiment is relevant to the present day psychology in many respects. The study has given us an understanding of the mental states such as agentic and autonomous.
Bickman (1974) put together a field study where an experimenter approached people on the street and asked them to carry out small jobs for them, which would put them out of their own routine. The experimenter was dressed …show more content…
either in a jacket and tie or a guard’s uniform. Bickman's results showed participants would follow the orders if the experimenter approached them in a uniform (psychlotron, n.d).
Orne & Holland (1968) blame Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism’. The participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner was not really receiving electric shocks. Research supports Milgram’s evidence, that without deception he would have had incorrect results. Rosenhan (1966) copied the study and people had heard of Milgram’s experiment and Rosenhan’s results were 70% as participants thought it was true. Milgram in his defence again explained if the participants were to know the truth that the experiment was not real, the results would have been different and this would have affected the end result.
The ethical concerns in the experiment were also argued by Baumrind (1964) ‘…. The feelings and rights of Milgram’s participants have been abused and inadequate measures were taken to protect them from stress and emotional conflict (Gross, 2015). However, in Milgram's defence he argued that participants had agreed to take part and some people could have left if they really wanted to. The participants had also a full
de-briefing and after a year had a follow-up and 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment”, and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved. Ecological validity of the experiment was questioned. People wondered how the results would be different if the experiment was not in a laboratory and in real life. They also criticised the experiment was obedience high due to the setting of Yale University and believed that no one thought they would actually come to any harm because they were in this prestige environment (boudless, n.d). Milgram argued that the realism of the authority figure was no different from being in the laboratory to the outside world. Milgram made variations to the study and one was the change of location to a rundown office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut to explore the difference in results. The rate was 47.5%; the original location had played some part in the results but had not been a crucial factor. Milgram’s findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures across the world and most have come to the same conclusion, some cases see higher obedience. Smith & Bond (1998) highlight with the omission of Jordan (Shanab &Yahya, 1978), most studies have been coordinated in industrial western cultures and we should be careful not to finish with a global mark of social behaviour being recognised. The limited sample which was used for the experiment consists of white middle class American males. Milgram only used this sample as he stated they lived in a democratic society and they were less likely to obey orders. He wanted to see if they were any similarities to the Nazi soldiers in the concentration camps of the Second World War.
Obedience in our society can be deadly and we are likely to follow the orders of an authority figure even if it means hurting an innocent person. Forcing too much obedience can make them too obedient becoming nervous and not showing their own personality. Obedience is essential to follow some standard laws otherwise the world would be in total chaos and it is important when teaching from right to wrong. Milgram’s study had some unethical methods so to this present day it has enabled new guidelines in treatment of research participants. As such this experiment is relevant to the present day psychology in many respects. The study has given us an understanding of the mental states such as agentic and autonomous.