More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature of authority in power
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment paper
Zimbardo stanford prison experiment paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In this article two experiments were mentioned; the Milgram's Experiment and the Stanford Experiment supporting that “people conform passively and unthinkingly to both the instructions and the roles that authorities provide, however malevolent these may be”. However, recently, the consensus of the two experiments had been challenged by the work of social identity theorizing. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Zimbardo. This experiment included a group of students who were “randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners”. It was conducted in a mock prison at the Stanford Psychology Department. Prisoners were abused, humiliated, and undergone psychological torture. In the experiment the guards played a very authoritarian …show more content…
For the guards “brutality was a “natural” consequence of being in the uniform of a ‘guard’ and asserting the power inherent in that role”.The Milgram Experiment took place in 1961. It was members of the “general public” mostly men who volunteered to take part in the study. This scientific study was a “study of the memory”. In this experiment there were two roles administered. The two roles being; the “Teacher” and the “Learner”. The role of the Teacher was to administer “shocks of increasing magnitude (from 15 V to 450 V in 15-V increments) to another man (the ‘‘Learner’’) every time he failed to recall the correct word in a previously learned pair”. Without the knowledge of the teacher, the Learner was “Milgram's confederate, and the shocks were not real”. Also rather than being more interested in the memory like the study specified, Milgram was more engrossed upon how far men would actually go to carry out the task. At the end of the experiment it was to him and others shock that, “the answer was very far”. By very far it was proved that the Teachers were “willing to administer shocks of 300 v and 65% went all the way …show more content…
This had been contradicted because Eichmann had an exceptional understanding of what his superiors were doing and took pride in what he did. The reason why this has also been contradicted is because the roles in order for what Eichmann had to do were very vague which meant that if Eichmann had wanted to bring success to the Nazi cause, “creativity and imagination were required.” Details of the final solution were not handed out to Eichmann but Eichmann had to explain it himself causing him to stand up and confront his superiors when he believed that they were not as willing to the eliminationist Nazi principles. While it was proven in other experiments another eye catching time it was proven that “individuals’ willingness to follow authorities is conditional on identification with the authority in question and an associated belief that the authority is right” was in Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. What was contradicted in his experiment
Eichmann voluntarily signed order after order to terminate the lives of tens of thousands of Jews with ease and without objection - and yet in his short time from capture to death in 1960-62, he tried to give the sense that he never wanted to do it all along! A member of an organization is representative of that organization as a whole. It's not like the hints of genocide, terror ruling, and dictatorship weren't ominously present from the beginning, anyway. Adolf Eichmann acts as if he just obliviously became a part of a terror party and was just under as much persecution as anyone else to do whatever that respective governing body said.
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority figures. Milgram is well aware of his audience and organization throughout his article, uses quotes directly from his experiment and connects his research with real world examples to make his article as effective as possible. Stanley Milgram selected 40 college participants, aged 20-50, to take part in the experiment at Yale University. Milgram says, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measureable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim” (632). Although the 40 men or women thought that they were in a drawing to see who would be the “teacher” and the “learner,” the drawing was fixed.
Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine).While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, in Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
In 1963, Stanley Milgram of Yale University created one of the most well- known and famous studies on obedience. Milgram conducted this study in order to figure out if there were similarities involving obedience in the systematic killing of Jews from 1933 to 1945. The question Milgram was trying to answer was whether the Nazi's excuse for the murders of millions was a valid excuse and if the mass killings were because of orders the Nazi’s obeyed. According to Milgram, “obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose”. Essentially obedience means compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority. Obedience in society is both a good and bad thing in terms of it being an act of kindness or in terms of it being destruction. Milgram then creates a procedure consisting of a subject shocking a victim. This electric shock is caused by a generator used with 30 marked voltage levels that all range from 15 to 450 volts. In other words, these shocks vary from “Slight shock to Danger: Severe Shock”. The subject administers these shocks to the victim and if at a certain point in the experiment the subject refuses to go on with the experiment resulting in the act of "disobedience". Continuing the experiment is considered “obedience”. The subjects of his experiment were 40 males from New Haven and the surrounding areas. Participants all were from ages 20 to 50. Subjects responded from a newspaper advertisement and mail solicitations and believed that they were participating in a study of memory and learning at Yale. The men of this study all had a wide variety of jobs and all ranged in education levels. The men were paid $4.50 to participate in the study and no matter the ...
Eichmann was a simple man that thought of himself as always being the law-abiding citizen. Eichmann stated in court that he had always tried to abide by Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (Arendt,135). Arendt argues that Eichmann had essentially taken the wrong lesson from Kant. Kant’s moral philosophy is so closely bound up with man’s faculty of judgment, which rules out blind obedience. Knowing this, we learn that Eichmann could not have just been going along with the Nazis without knowing anything that was going on or the consequences. Eichmann had not recognized the ‘golden rule’ and principle of reciprocity implicit in the categorical imperative, but had only understood the concept of one man's actions coinciding with general law. Eichmann attempted to follow the spirit of the laws he carried out, as if the legislator himself would approve. In Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative, the legislator is the moral self and all men are legislators. In other words, we are all taking on the roll of the leader. In Eichmann's formulation, the legislator was Hitler. Eichmann claimed this changed when he was charged with carrying out the Final Solution, at which point Arendt claims "he had ceased to live according to Kantian principles, that he had known it, and that he had consoled himself with the thoughts that he no longer 'was master of ...
The Milgram experiment was designed and performed by Yale University social psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1961. Milgram created this experiment predominately to determine what would have motivated Germans to so readily conform to the demands put forth by the Nazi party. Milgram wished to answer his question, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (McLeod). At the time of these experiments, debates about the Nuremberg trials, particularly the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the major perpetrators in the Holocaust, were still ongoing. At these trials, many Nazi party officials and military officers were put on trial for committing “crimes against humanity.” Although some defendants pleaded guilty, others claimed that they were innocent and only following orders that were given to them by a higher authority, Adolf Hitler. In the end, twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death, three to life in prison, four to approximately fifteen year prison terms, and three were acquitted (“The Nuremberg Trials”)....
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.
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
In the article "The Perils of Obedience" Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, recounts an experiment where he tested how people's obedience varies under extreme circumstances. He discovered having a higher authority in the room dramatically increases obedience (Milgram 88). Meanwhile, in the article "Obedience," Ian Parker, a British writer, is not as quick to jump to conclusions as Milgram. Instead, Parker cites needed information that is missing from Milgram's article. In Stanley Milgram's infamous 1963 experiment, he investigates precisely how far people will go to hurt someone, while still obeying orders from an authority figure. Although it is torture, a portion of the people continue to administer pain upon the test subjects because they are being obedient and following orders. Milgram and Parker both convey strong arguments for their respective points, despite disagreeing on several matters.
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a Yale University Psychologist conducted a variety of social psychology experiments on obedience to authority figures. His experiments involved three individuals, one of them was a volunteer who played the role of the teacher, one was an actor who played the role of the student, and one was the experimenter who played the role of the authority. The teacher was instructed by the authority to administrate shocks to the student (who claimed to have a heart condition) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The voltage of the shock would go up after every wrong answer. The experimenter would then instruct the teacher to administrate higher voltages even though pain was being imposed. The teacher would then have to make a choice between his morals and values or the choice of the authority figure. The point of the experiment was to try to comprehend just how far an individual would continue when being ordered by an individual in a trench coat to electrically shock another human being for getting questions incorrect. The experiment consisted of administrating pain to different people and proved that ordinary people will obey people with authority. Some of the various reasons are that the experimenter was wearing a trench coat, fear of the consequences for not cooperating, the experiments were conducted in Yale University a place of prestige, and the authority f...
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
15 men participated in The BBC Prison Study. At the beginning of the experiment there was a possibility for the prisoners to be promoted to guards, therefore, prisoners did not identify with their group. After 3 days, prisoners started to work together, they noticed that guards could not agree on decisions and prisoners overthrown guards. Guard groups had a deviant – the over-disciplined guard. Then everyone came up with an idea of equality, but that did not work either and the experiment was stopped. This experiment’s conclusions differ from Stanford’s Experiment and therefore it opened up a discussion once
The two Marines did not understand why they were charged with his murder, claiming, “We didn’t do anything wrong.” They claimed that they were only following orders from a superior. To explain the Marines’ behaviors, Milgram would argue that the Marines fell to the pressures of authority. In the article “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram tests the psychological affects on the “teacher” rather than on the “learner” (Milgram 78) About two-thirds of the test subjects were completely obedient and used the 450-volt shocks, and all of the participants used the painful 300-volt shock (Milgram 80). With these surprising results, Milgram deducts that many of these test subjects carried out these actions because of the authority figure in the room. Coming to a final conclusion, Milgram states that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (Milgram 86). Obedience to authority is ingrained in children from the day they are born, and they are raised to be obedient and this is why many people are obedient. With Milgram’s conclusion, it would be logical to assume that he would argue that the influence of authority is why Dawson and