You are on page 1of 15

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist

Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,[1] and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.[2] The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"[3] Milgram's testing was meant to answer that question in a laboratory setting. The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies, although not with the same percentages across the globe.[4] The experiments were also controversial, and considered by some scientists to be unethical and physically or psychologically abusive. Psychologist Diana Baumrind considered the experiment "harmful because it may cause permanent psychological damage and cause people to be less trusting in the future."[5] Such criticism motivated more thorough review boards and committee reviews for working with human subjects. Three individuals were involved: the one running the experiment, the subject of the experiment (a volunteer), and a confederate pretending to be a volunteer. These three persons fill three distinct roles: the Experimenter (an authoritative role), the Teacher (a role intended to obey the orders of the Experimenter), and the Learner (the recipient of stimulus from the Teacher). The subject and the actor both drew slips of paper to determine their roles, but unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher". The actor would always claim to have drawn the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the subject would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1] The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1] The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1] If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1] Please continue. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no other choice, you must go on. If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.[1] The experimenter also gave special prods if the teacher made specific comments. If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical harm, the experimenter replied, "Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on." If the teacher said that the learner clearly wants to stop, the experimenter replied, "Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on." Professor Milgram elaborated two theories The first is the theory of conformism, based on Solomon Asch conformity experiments, describing the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person. A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. The group is the person's behavioral model. The second is the agentic state theory, wherein, per Milgram, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow". STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT Background

In 1971, the psychologist Philip Zimbardo tried to show that prison guards and convicts would tend to slip into predefined roles, behaving in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own judgment and morals.

Zimbardo was trying to show what happened when all of the individuality and dignity was stripped away from a human, and their life was completely controlled.

He wanted show the dehumanization and loosening of social and moral values that can happen to guards immersed in such a situation.

Method

To conduct the Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo constructed a mock correctional facility in the basement of Stanford University.

Adverts were placed in local newspapers offering $15 per day for participants in this program. Of the 75 responses, the 24 male subjects judged to be most mentally and emotionally stable were selected. Mainly middle class and white, they were divided into two groups randomly, of 12 prisoners and 12 guards.

The group selected to be the guards were outfitted in military-style' intimidating uniforms. They were also equipped with wooden batons and mirrored shades, to prevent eye-contact and make the guards appear less human.

In an initiation meeting, Zimbardo, who acted as the warden for the duration of the experiment, informed the guards that the only rule was that no physical punishment was allowed. Other than that, the guards were to run the prison as they saw fit, and would be divided into regular working shifts and patterns.

Prisoners, by contrast, were dressed in cheap smocks and were allowed no underwear. They were to be addressed by, and answer to, identity numbers only. They also had a small chain around one ankle to remind them that they were inmates in a correctional facility. Conditions were tough, with only basic sleeping mattresses and plain food being supplied.

The prisoners were instructed to wait at home "to be called" for the start of the experiment; their homes were raided without any warning, arrested by the real local police department and charged with armed robbery.

The Palo Alto Police had agreed to help with the experiment. As if they were real-life suspects, the prisoners were read their rights and had their mug shots and fingerprints taken. After being stripped, searched and de-loused, they were taken into the cells that would be their homes for the next two weeks.

Zimbardo, acting as a prison warden, would be able to observe and make notes about what happened during the course of the study.

Results

The Stanford Prison Experiment degenerated very quickly and the dark and inhuman side of human nature became apparent very quickly.

The prisoners began to suffer a wide array of humiliations and punishments at the hands of the guards, and many began to show signs of mental and emotional distress.

On the second day of the experiment, the prisoners organized a mass revolt and riot, as a protest about the conditions. Guards worked extra hours and devised a strategy to break up and put down the riot, using fire-extinguishers.

No prompt for this action was given by Zimbardo; the guards used their own initiative to formulate the plan.

Standard prisoner counts and roll-call became a trial of ordeal and ritual humiliation for the prisoners, with forced exercise and physical punishments becoming more and more common. Mattresses were confiscated from the prisoners and they were forced to sleep on cold, hard floors.

Toilet facilities became a privilege, instead of a basic human right, with access to the bathroom being frequently denied; the inmates often had to clean the toilet facilities with their bare hands. Prisoners were often stripped and subjected to sexual humiliation, as a weapon of intimidation.

The experiment showed that one third of the guards began to show an extreme and imbedded streak of sadism, and Zimbardo himself started to become internalized in the experiment. Two of the prisoners had to be removed early because they were showing real signs of emotional distress.

Interestingly, none of the prisoners wanted to quit the experiment early, even when told that they would be denied their participation pay. The prisoners became institutionalized very quickly and adapted to their roles.

A replacement prisoner was introduced and was instructed to go on hunger strike as a protest about the treatment of his fellow inmates, and as an attempt to obtain early release. Surprisingly, his fellow inmates viewed him as a troublemaker rather than a fellow victim trying to help them.

When the inmates were informed that, if the rest of their prisoners gave up their blankets, he would be released from solitary confinement, all but one refused to give up their blanket.

The Stanford Prison Experiment carried on for six days until an outsider, Christina Maslach, a graduate student who would later become Zimbardo's wife, was brought in to interview guards and prisoners and was shocked by the scenes that she was witnessing.

Zimbardo terminated the experiment early and noted that out of over 50 external visitors, this lady was the only one to raise concerns about what was happening.

Conclusions

Zimbardo believed that the experiment showed how the individual personalities of people could be swamped when they were given positions of authority.

Zimbardo has acknowledged that some guards did try to change the system. He later investigated the topic about "heroes" - those who do not succumb to the system. Social and ideological factors also determined how both groups behaved, with individuals acting in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own judgment.

The experiment appeared to show how subjects reacted to the specific needs of the situation rather than referring to their own internal morals or beliefs.

The results of the experiment have been used in many high profile court cases over the years, to try and show that a prison must have clear instructions and guidelines from higher level authorities, or prisoner abuse may occur.

Criticisms

The ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment have long been called into question, and, certainly, without stricter controls this experiment would not be sanctioned today; it could pose a genuine risk to people disposed towards mental and emotional imbalances.

In fairness to Zimbardo, most of these discussions take place with a lot of hindsight, and he could not have guessed the internalization and institutionalization that would occur during the course of the study.

Other criticisms include the validity of the results. It was a field experiment, rather than a scientific experiment, so there are only observational results and no scientific evaluation.

In addition, it would be very difficult for anybody to replicate the experiment conditions.

The selection of the subjects has been questioned extensively with the wording of the advert stating wanted for prison experiments', this may have caused people with more of a pre-disposition towards violence to apply.

In the aftermath of the study, many of the guards and prisoners indicated that they were only acting out roles that they thought were expected of them, so there is no consensus on whether the study really portrayed human nature or not.

Whether the Stanford Prison Experiment relates to real prisons is another matter. Although maltreatment of prisoners undoubtedly takes place all across the world, in most facilities, the guards are carefully screened and undergo a long and extensive training process. Zimbardo screened both prisoners and guards for non-social tendencies in his experiment.

They also have rigid protocols to which they are supposed to stick. In addition, the study studied only male subjects and most western prisons do have a mix of sexes on the guard staff.

Zimbardo also glossed over the fact that not all of the guards showed sadistic tendencies, with some seeking to actively help the prisoners and show sympathy towards them.

Later studies have concluded that abuse in prisons often comes from the top down and that when orders are given these can affect the results. If the guards had been given stricter guidelines from Zimbardo at the beginning then there may have been fewer sadistic tendencies shown by the guards selected for the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Asch Experiment - Conformity in Groups The experiment is related closely to the Stanford Prison and Milgram Experiments, in that it tries to show how perfectly normal human beings can be pressured into unusual behavior by authority figures, or by the consensus of opinion around them.

For the experiment, eight subjects were seated around a table, with the seating plan carefully constructed to prevent any suspicion.

Only one participant was actually a genuine subject for the experiment, the rest being confederates, carefully tutored to give certain pre-selected responses. Careful experimental construction placed a varying amount of peer pressure on the individual test subject.

Asch Experiment - Figure 1The experiment was simple in its construction; each participant, in turn, was asked to answer a series of questions, such as which line was longest or which matched the reference line. (Fig 1)

The participants gave a variety of answers, at first correct, to avoid arousing suspicion in the subject, but then with some incorrect responses added.

This would allow Asch to determine how the answers of the subject would change with the added influence of peer pressure.

The Asch Experiment results were interesting and showed that peer pressure could have a measurable influence on the answers given.

The control group, those not exposed to peer pressure where everybody gave correct answers, threw up only one incorrect response out of 35; this could probably be explained by experimental error.

The results for the other groups were interesting; when surrounded by people giving an incorrect answer, over one third of the subjects also voiced an incorrect opinion.

At least 75% of the subjects gave the wrong answer to at least one question, although experimental error may have had some influence on this figure. There was no doubt, however, that peer pressure can cause conformity.

It was debated whether this is because people disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes or if it was just compliance, that people hide their opinions.

Follow ups to the Asch Experiment showed that the number of dissenting voices made a difference to the results, as did the forcefulness of the confederates.

One incorrect confederate made little difference to the answers, but the influence steadily increased if two or three people disagreed.

The figures did not change much after this point; more confederates made little difference. The number of people in the group also made a difference; the influence of dissenting voices leveled off for groups of more than six or seven people.

The experiments also showed that, even if only one other participant disagreed with the confederates, the subject was more likely to resist peer pressure; it appears to be more difficult to resist the majority if isolated.

The Asch Experiment showed that one voice can make a difference amongst many.

There have been a number of criticisms of Asch's experiments; the subjects were all young males, and they tend to be much more impressionable than older men. More mature people have had enough experience of life, and more mental strength; they are more likely to hold true to their convictions.

Another criticism, that the experiment lacks ecological credibility and does not relate to real-life situations, is one that can be leveled at many psychological experiments, including the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Other follow up experiments, where the subjects were allowed to write down responses anonymously, showed far fewer incorrect answers. The comfort of anonymity made sure that looking foolish became much less of a pressure

he history of psychology is rich with fascinating studies and experiments that have helped changed the way we think about the human mind and behavior. Some of the most famous psychology experiments include Pavlov's research with dogs, Milgram's studies of obedience and Harlow's work with rhesus monkeys. Explore some of these famous psychology experiments to learn more about some of the bestknown research in psychology history.

famous psychology experiments Learn more about some of psychology's most famous experiments. Photo courtesy Rich Legg/iStockPhoto Pavlov's Dogs: How Ivan Pavlov Discovered Classical Conditioning: Classical conditioning is one of the major topics studied by students in every introductory psychology class. You may be surprised to learn that it was actually a physiologist who made this important psychological discovery.

The Little Albert Experiment: The Little Albert experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Raynor. Learn more about the Little Albert experiment and discover what happened to the boy in the study.

The Asch Conformity Experiments: Researchers have long been interested in the degree to which people follow or rebel against social norms. During the 1950s, psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments designed to demonstrate the powers of conformity in groups.

Harry Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments: In a series of controversial experiments conducted in 1960s, psychologist Harry Harlow demonstrated the powerful effects of love on normal development. By showing the devastating effects of deprivation on young rhesus monkeys, Harlow revealed the importance of love for healthy childhood development. His experiments were often unethical and shockingly cruel, yet they uncovered fundamental truths that have heavily influenced our understanding of child development.

The Milgram Obedience Experiment: In Milgram's experiment, participants were asked to deliver electrical shocks to a "learner" whenever an incorrect answer was given. In reality, the learner was actually a confederate in the experiment who pretended to be shocked. The purpose of the experiment was to determine how far people were willing to go in order to obey the commands of an authority

figure. Milgram found that 65% of participants were willing to deliver the maximum level of shocks despite the fact that the learner seemed to be in serious distress or even unconscious.

The Stanford Prison Experiment: Philip Zimbardo's famous experiment cast regular students in the roles of prisoners and prison guards. While the study was originally slated to last two weeks, it had to be halted after just six days because the guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety.

Broken windows experiment 1969, Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment on human nature. He abandoned two similar cars in different neighborhoods one in the heart of the Bronx, N.Y., the other in an affluent neighborhood in Palo Alto, Calif. He removed the license plates, left the hoods open, and chronicled what happened. In the Bronx, within 10 minutes of abandonment, people began stealing parts from the alluring car. It took approximately three days to strip the car of all valuable parts. Once stripped of economic value, the car then became a source of entertainment. People smashed windows, ripped upholstery, and chipped the paint reducing the car to a pile of junk. In Palo Alto, something quite different happened nothing. For more than a week, the car sat unmolested. There was no theft, vandalism, or even a scratch. Puzzled, Zimbardo, in plain view of everyone, took a sledgehammer

and smashed part of the car. Soon passersby were taking turns with the hammer, delivering blow after satisfying blow. Within a few hours, the vehicle was resting on its roof, demolished. Among the scholars who took note of Zimbardos experiment were two criminologists: James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The experiment spurred their now famous broken windows theory of crime. Their premise is that if a broken window remains unrepaired, vandals will soon break a buildings remaining windows. Why is that? Aside from the fact that it is fun to break windows, why does the broken window invite further vandalism? Wilson and Kellings hypothesis is the broken window sends a signal that no one is in charge, breaking more windows costs nothing, and there are no consequences to breaking more windows. The broken window is a metaphor for ways behavioral norms break down in a community.If one person scrawls graffiti on the wall, others will soon be spraying paint. If one aggressive panhandler begins working a street block, others will follow. In short, once people begin disregarding norms that keep order in a community, both order and community unravel. Police in big cities have dramatically reduced crime rates by applying this theory. Rather than concentrating on felonies, they

aggressively enforce minor offenses like graffiti, public drinking, panhandling, and littering. This police enforcement sends a signal that broken-window behavior has consequences in a city. If you cannot get away with jumping a turnstile in the subway, you had better not try armed robbery. At this point, you are wondering what crime in the streets has to do with software development. The broken window theory plays out in software development organizations daily. Software managers inadvertently send signals that no one is in charge and there are no costs or consequences to ignoring project norms. Before you say not on my project, you might want to look for some classical broken windows in your organization. Problems arise when managers allow prima donnas to dominate, intimidate, and dictate projects. It is tempting to let a technical superstar take the lead, especially for managers who question their own engineering talent, but they will pay in the end. Once ideas are stifled and insults start flying, team members will opt out or limit their contribution to the project. The prima donna will get overloaded and then the vandalism will begin. Broken stained glass is still broken glass. Do you cultivate sages who are inclusive and teach their craft, or prima donnas who hide their weaknesses and feed their insecurities? Do you have managers whose directions are clear as mud? Like the opaque window in a bathroom, they appear to shed light on the subject but in reality, things are not that bright or clear. After a while, some engineers enjoy these opaque managers because if directions are not clear then accountability is not clear. If

accountability is not clear, then this project is a free for all, so start breaking the windows. Are you blocking the light or letting the sunshine in? Troubles occur when managers exert their authority by hoarding information and tightening control. Collaboration and initiative are dirty words to these comptrollers. Everything runs on maximum management sanction and minimum information sharing. Processes stall or wander, engineers revert to cruise control, and information flows like Molly Brown through a portal window. Do you lead, manage, or choke your projects? Then there are indecisive managers, the sliding glass doors of management. People are enamored with sliding glass doors until they own one. Then you discover the door is always open when you want it closed and kids are constantly running into it when closed, thinking it is open. Like a sliding glass door, you never seem to be accordant with indecisive managers. They never provide direction and avoid decisions until you make a move, then there they are blocking progress or letting the air out of your project. Are you indecisive? Need more time to think about it? Space and time is running out so we will have to discuss the skylight manager, triple-pane glass manager, tinted window manager, two-way mirror manager, and the cockpit canopy manager another time.

The point is, once managers begin disregarding norms that keep order in a project, both order and the project unravel. Repair the broken windows in your management style and order will return. Amazingly, I think Wilson and Kellings theory may explain the mystery of software quality. From its first release to present versions, Microsoft Windows was released broken. Distributing broken Windows sends a signal that no one is in charge, there are no consequences, and breaking more Windows software is okay. Software norms break down and our systems vandalized all from broken windows.

You might also like