2. FAMOUS EXPERIMENTS

THE FAMOUS EXPERIMENTS

START

STANLEY MILGRIM OBEDIENCE

aim

Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.

procedure

Volunteers were recruited for a controlled experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.

+ INFO

results

65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts. Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).

conclusion

The individual explanation for the behaviour of the participants would be that it was something about them as people that caused them to obey, but a more realistic explanation is that the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did.

+ INFO

agency theory

Milgrim, 1974

Milgram (1974) explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people have two states of behavior when they are in a social situation:

01

02

AUTONOMOUS STATE

AGENTIC STATE

people allow others to direct their actions and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.

people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.

VS

Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state:

1. The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate.

2. The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

+ INFO

MILGRIM VARIATIONS

The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram (1965) varied the basic procedure (changed the IV). By doing this Milgram could identify which factors affected obedience (the DV). Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study). In total 636 participants have been tested in 18 different variation studies.

INFLUENCING FACTORS

UNIFORM

TWO TEACHER

LOCATION

03

01

02

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

PROXIMITY

SOCIAL PROOF

ABSENCE

04

06

05

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

ash's line experiment confirmity

conclusions & criticisms

INFLUENCING FACTORS

GROUP SIZE

TASK DIFFICULTY

LACK OF AN ALLY

03

01

02

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

MORE INFO

zimbardo prison experiment

aim

Zimbardo and his colleagues (1973) were interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e., dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment (i.e., situational).

procedure

24 men judged to be the most physically & mentally stable, the most mature, & the least involved in antisocial behaviors were chosen to participate. The participants did not know each other prior to the study and were paid $15 per day to take part in the experiment.

+ INFO

results

The experiment was set to run for two weeks. Zimbardo found that both the prisoners and guards quickly identified with their social roles. Within days the prisoners rebelled, but this was quickly crushed by the guards, who then grew increasingly abusive towards the prisoners.

+ INFO

conclusion

According to Zimbardo and his colleagues, the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed how people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as those of the prison guards. Because the guards were placed in a position of authority, they began to act in ways they would not usually behave in their normal lives.

+ INFO

explanation

zimmbardo, 1973

Zimbardo proposed that two processes can explain the prisoner's 'final submission.'

01

02

DEINVIDUALATION

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

may explain the behavior of the participants; especially the guards. This is a state when you become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.

could explain the prisoner's submission to the guards. The prisoners learned that whatever they did had little effect on what happened to them. In the mock prison the unpredictable decisions of the guards led the prisoners to give up responding.

VS

+ INFO

+ INFO

Discussion Questions

1. What are the effects of living in an environment with no clocks, no view of the outside world, and minimal sensory stimulation? 2. Consider the psychological consequences of stripping, delousing, and shaving the heads of prisoners or members of the military. What transformations take place when people go through an experience like this? 3. The prisoners could have left at any time, and yet, they didn’t. Why? 4. After the study, how do you think the prisoners and guards felt? 5. If you were the experimenter in charge, would you have done this study? Would you have terminated it earlier? Would you have conducted a follow-up study?