Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conformity and non conformity
Conformity and non conformity
Features of behaviour in conformity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The human mind, has the tendency to desire acceptance in society. As social creatures, it is rather difficult for an individual to constrain from being influenced and being adapted to the environment around them. People will readily conform to the social roles that they are expected to portray in certain environments. The Milgram Experiment, and the Stanford Prison Experiment are great examples of how much the environment controls individual behavior, and how obedient people are to authority, despite their moral beliefs. The 'Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass' portrays such examples of how it relates to the experiment. Even though the details of his life as a slave occurred over a hundred years ago, his findings concur with that of
the actions taken in both of the experiments. Douglass' experience in different environments as a slave delineate the human changes in behavior that occurred in both the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Milgram Experiment in the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. Frederick Douglass' life on the plantation was filled with agony, cruel masters, and mental control that depict the horrors of slavery. Perhaps on of the most prevalent examples
One of the ways that the Stanford Prison Experiment was different than the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal is that in the Stanford Prison Experiment they had roles. Half of the boys were given, the role of prisoners and the other half of the boys was given the role of the prisoner guards. This meant that the half that was guards had the power, whereas the prisoners were powerless because they had to do whatever the guards told them to do. Therefore, since the guards in the experiment knew that they had a lot power, they then began to eventually abuse their power as the experiment went on against the prisoners. For example, in the experiment the guard hit the prisoner with a nightstick out
A local newspaper ad reached out for volunteers to participate in a Psychological study, created by Philip G. Zimbardo and his research team, which sounded interesting for many individuals. Was it the best option to follow through with it? Volunteers were given a promise of being paid fifteen dollars a day of the study. Multiple members probably considered this a once in a life time event that could result in quick, easy money. Many may have heard about the Stanford Prison Experiment, but may not have been aware of the scars that it left upon the participants. Taking a deeper look into the study and the impacted outcomes on individuals will be elaborated on (Stanford Prison Experiment).
The experiment was to see if people would follow the orders of an authority figure, even if the orders that were given proved to cause pain to the person taking the test. In the “Milgram Experiment” by Saul McLeod, he goes into detail about six variations that changed the percentage of obedience from the test subject, for example, one variable was that the experiment was moved to set of run down offices rather than at Yale University. Variables like these changed the results dramatically. In four of these variations, the obedience percentage was under 50 percent (588). This is great evidence that it is the situation that changes the actions of the individual, not he or she’s morals.
People will do some of the craziest things when any level of force is placed upon them. People will succumb to the pressure of doing things they had never imagined they could do. Just recently people can look at the events of the revolts in Northern Africa and the extremes the people did to over throw their governments, events at Abu Ghraib, and the recent riots in Missouri. When mass hysteria or force from others is involved people will succumb to the situation and may do things they would normally deem immoral.
Phillip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford experiment where 24 physiologically and physically healthy males were randomly selected where half would be prisoners and the other half prisoner guards. To make the experiments as real as possible, they had the prisoner participants arrested at their homes. The experiment took place in the basement of the Stanford University into a temporary made prison.
In the Stanford Prison Experiment, a study done with the participation of a group of college students with similar backgrounds and good health standing who were subjected to a simulated prison environment. The participants were exposed completely to the harsh environment of a real prison in a controlled environment with specific roles of authority and subordinates assigned to each individual. The study was formulated based on reports from Russian novelist Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky had spent four years in a Siberian prison and his view on how a man is able to withstand anything after experiencing the horrors of prison prompted Dr. Philip Zimbardo a Professor of Psychology at Stanford and his
Obedience is the requirement of all mutual living and is the basic element of the structure of social life. Conservative philosophers argue that society is threatened by disobedience, while humanists stress the priority of the individuals' conscience. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, designed an experiment that forced participants to either violate their conscience by obeying the immoral demands of an authority figure or to refuse those demands. Milgram's study, reported in "The Perils of Obedience" suggested that under a special set of circumstances the obedience we naturally show authority figures can transform us into agents of terror or monsters towards humanity.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The purpose of the experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
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.
Would you go into prison to get paid? Do you believe that you will come out the same or become different? Do not answer that. The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment that was conduct in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. Seventy applicants answered the ad and were narrowed down to 24 college students, which half were assigned either to be guards or prisoners by random selection. Those 24 college students were picked out from the of 70 applicants by taking personality tests and given diagnostic interviews to remove any candidates with psychological problems, medical disabilities, or a history of crime or drug abuse. The experiment lasted six days but it was supposed to last two weeks, it was so traumatizing that it was cut short. Zimbardo was the lead researcher and also had a role in pretend prison. Zimbardo’s experiment was based on looking
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
The general goal of the experiment was to see how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict another person just because he or she was ordered to do so by an experimental scientist. In his article, "The Perils of Obedeince", Milgram concluded his analysis of the experiment by saying "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority," (Milgram, 1974, p76). Milgram summarized that obedience is a basic behavior element in social life that is deeply ingrained that it override people from acting according to the ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct (Milgram, 1973, p62). The way obedience is set in the modern society leads to the loss of personal responsibility from ordinary citizens. In the society, people are taught to behave legally and morally. However, Milgram argued that learning ethics does not necessarily determine what people will actually do in their real-life situations (Milgram, 1973, p76). To check the experiment 's accuracy, similar experiments were held in different countries such as South Africa,
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
In her article, Diana Baumrind discusses the Milgram obedience experiment which she says produces “ethical decisions” and considers “not… suited to the objectives of the study” (Baumrind 90, 93). Her article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience,” especially focuses on Milgram’s “objective” stance to the mental health of his test subjects and his supposed failure to inform his subjects of what they were to undertake (Baumrind 94). Baumrind compares Milgram’s experiment to the death camp situation in Nazi Germany and his laboratory to that of Hitler’s Germany (Baumrind 93). Writer Ian Parker poses a different angle on the same experiment and psychologist in his article “Obedience.” Throughout his article, Parker provides information