Compare And Contrast Milgram And Stanford Prison Study

Professor Jern

PSYC 220

1/23/23

Obedience Essay

Since a young age, we are taught to obey and do what we’re told. But just how far will our natural instinct to obey take us? Many psychologists have asked the same question. Two of the more well-known studies in this area were conducted by Psychologist Stanley Milgram, with the Milgram Obedience Studies, and Professor Philip G. Zimbardo, with the Stanford Prison Study. Although both studies took place over 40 years ago, they have both given substantial contributions to the knowledge of obedience. Unfortunately, since these studies were so widely known, there has been a large amount of criticism over the way they were conducted. Because of these criticisms, it is hard to verify that any findings

The basic study consisted of a subject who was asked to read off a test to a test taker in another room. Before the experiment, it is mentioned that the test taker has a heart condition. If the test taker got a question wrong, the subject was told to shock the test taker. Each wrong answer caused the amplitude of shocks to increase. At a certain point in the test, the test taker would start to scream. It was then recorded how much longer the subject would continue with the shocks. The study showed “65% obedience for both men and woman in the baseline condition.” (Griggs, 2) Unfortunately, these results have most likely been skewed by deception, and

It shows evidence that people can conform to roles given to them by others. Although this study is recognized globally, it is riddled with events that renege any evidence of conformity and obedience. The first criticism with the experiment comes before the experiment even started. “Twenty-four college students recruited from a newspaper ad to participate in a study of prison life, first completed a battery and psychological test and surveys.” (Zimbardo, 2) Right off the bat there ways to manipulate the study. Zimbardo could have easily chose students who show psychological signs of being able to conform easily or be easily manipulated. Another reason the experiment is not as credible as it seems is because the prison guards were instructed many times to be “though”. In the first day of the experiment the guards were seen smiling and not taking the roles seriously, so the experimenters took it into their own hands. In one example, “David Jaffee, acting as the SPE’s warden, took (a) guard aside and asked him to be more active, involved, and ‘tough’ in order to make the experimental setting seem more like a prison.” (Zimbardo, 3) By stepping in and manipulating the guards’ actions by telling them how to act completely voids the experiment of seeing if the students conform to their assigned