Obedience to Authority Essay

In Maria Konnikova’s “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” she reveals what she believes to be the reality of sociologist Philip Zimbardo’s controversial study: its participants were not “regular” people.

When we see people doing bad things we assume it is because they are bad people. Social Psychologist Philip Zimbardo would argue that this isn’t true. In April 2004 disturbing and graphic pictures surfaced, showing American soldiers mentally and physically abusing Iraqi prisoners held at the Abu Ghraib prison located in Bagdad. Looking at the photos that was surfaced, it looks strikingly familiar to those in the Stanford prison experiment that was done many years ago. The prisoners had bags over their heads and were subjected to all kinds of sexual and inhumane humiliation. The military went on the defence saying “those officers were a few bad apples.” To understand why the military soldiers at the Abu Grahib prison abused the Iraqi prisoners, we need to look back at the lessons of Philip Zimbardo’s prison experiment and Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiment. The results of these experiments showed that there are a set of social psychological factors that can make ordinary people do things they could have never imagined doing. It shows how people respond when placed in cruel environments without clear rules, do bad things. I will look at Zimbardo’s case of ‘Good apples in bad barrels.’ And I will try to understand what lead to the abuses that occurred within the walls of Abu Ghraib.

A classic experiment on the natural obedience of individuals was designed and tested by a Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The test forced participants to either go against their morals or violate authority. For the experiment, two people would come into the lab after being told they were testing memory loss, though only one of them was actually being tested. The unaware individual, called the “teacher” would sit in a separate room, administering memory related questions. If the individual in the other room, the “learner,” gave a wrong answer, the teacher would administer a shock in a series of increasingly painful shocks correlating with the more answers given incorrectly. Milgram set up a recorder

In 1963, Stanley Milgram completed the Obedience to Authority experiment in which participants were misled to believe that they shocked another human being for each wrong answer, with progressively higher voltages. At one point, the other (nonexistent) person appears to die, and stops responding entirely. A high percentage of people went all the way to the highest voltage. This study has been critiqued for ethical and moral shortcomings. Milgram’s study revealed a rather disturbing ability for humans to carry out significant harm, even causing the death of another person, should they put the responsibility of their actions on an authority figure.

In the Stanford prison experiment the researcher, Philip Zimbardo, thought they were just going to figure out the psychology of prison life. Little did he know this experiment would change the view of roles in society. Humans tend to fall into the role society lays out for us as proven by the Stanford prison experiment. When Zimbardo was planning the experiment, in August of 1971, he was just searching for the psychology of prison life, to see how people act when they are put into a powerless situation.

One of the most known study of obedience was conducted by psychologist Stanley Milgram (“Milgram”). This experiment was focusing on the effects of people’s obedience to authority and their own conscious thoughts and beliefs when it came to harming another person (“Milgram”). Milgram advertised for male participants of varying ages and jobs to be in a Yale University study (“Milgram”). The participant was paired with another person who each had to draw straws to see who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner” (“Milgram”). However, this draw was fixed that so the teacher would always be the participant and the learner would

This paper explores seven peer-reviewed articles that analyze the Milgram Experiment and its results on people’s obedience to authority. The articles range from describing the experiment’s origins to analyzing factors that went into the participant’s compliance such as Strain Resolving Mechanisms (SRMs) and pressure binding factors (BFs), and additionally, finding trends in personality that correlate with levels of obedience. In the first official trial, 65% of participants had agreed to press all the buttons in a shock machine that they were led to believe would administer a deadly shock to another person (Russell 2011). This paper analyzes what led to such an infamous high percentage, what it reveals about the human psychology, and how it can apply to the current day.

In 1963, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a disputable, but highly revered, study on obedience. The experiment was designed to test people’s morals versus an extreme authority, but, as predicted, obedience prevailed. Then in 1973, Philip G. Zimbardo created his own experiment, not unlike Milgram’s, that analyzed the potential of individuals to withstand the pressure of succumbing to an obedient role based on the environment. Both Stanley Milgram, author of “The Perils of Obedience,” and Philip Zimbardo, author of “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” conducted controversial experiments that proved that when an ordinary person was put into a different role it affected their obedience to authority.

In 1971, Philip George Zimbardo—psychologist and professor at Stanford University conducted prison experiment to test the effect of situations. In contrast with prediction as lengthy and boring, the experiment’s result shocked the world. The Stanford Prison Experiment has indicated the significant power of roles, or situations, on human behaviors; thus, brings about many influences on society. According to Zimbardo in “ Obedience to Authority,” he asked the students during the spring term to reverse role and lecture him a topic that would interest him.

Stanley Milgram, conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. According to the study Migram suggested “that obedience we naturally show authority figures can transform us into agents of terror” (Migram, 1974/1994, p. 214). Milgram experiment was developed for the justification of the act of genocide in World War II. Many of the accomplices in the Holocaust said they were following in order given by Adolf Eichmann. Obedience to superiors is built onto the history of civilized society, and no culture worthy of the name has existed without stressing the respect that is due to legitimate authority of the duties of those in command. Milgram study provides information that supports that

In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram reports from his studies of how far an individual can go in obedience to instructions and he pointed out that individuals can go as far as causing serious harm to the other people. Basically, the experiments are meant to test the choice that an individual would make when faced with the conflict of choosing between obedience to authority and obedience to one’s conscience. From the tests, it was found out that a number of people would go against their own conscience of choosing between what is wrong and what is right so as to please the individual in authority (Milgram 317). However, the experiments conducted by Milgram caused a wide range of controversy for instance; according to Diana Baumrind, the experiments were immoral. Baumrind notes in ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that Milgram did not only entrap his subjects, but he also potentially caused harm to his subjects (Baumrind 329). Based on the arguments that have been presented by the two authors, it is apparent that the two authors are concerned with real life situations, authority and ethics but the difference is that they both view these perspectives from different points of view as indicated by their writings. By and large, they also tend to show the importance or the insignificance of the experiments.

I believe it is safe to say that the subjects of any legitimate state have an obligation to at obey their governing bodies. Underlying my own obedience to my country's laws are a number of reasons - an understanding of my obligation to take responsibility for my own actions, a recognition of my government's authority over me, a belief that the laws of my country are well-founded, and a fear of the consequences of disobeying said laws. Without laws, a society would quickly crumble into disorder and chaos, unless its entire population is benevolent and selfless. And since my beliefs about human nature run contrary to the idea that we all want what is best for each other, I don't believe that said chaos can be avoided without a respected

Obedience and Disobedience has been a part of key moments in history. Many have studied forms of obedience to learn how it affects people and situations. For example, Stanley Milgram conducted a well-known experiment in which the subject, named the “teacher” must shock the “learner” every time he doesn’t remember a word pair from a memory test. The focus of this study is on the teacher, and whether they will administer killing shocks when told to by an authority figure. Another well-known experiment is the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo. A group of college boys were separated into two groups, prison guards and prisoners, and were put

Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.

Today our society raises us to believe that obedience is good and disobedience is bad. We are taught that we should all do what we’re told and that the people that are disobedient are almost always bad people. Society tells us this, but it is not true. Most people will even be obedient to the point of causing harm to others, because to be disobedient requires the courage to be alone against authority. In Stanley Milgram’s "Perils of Obedience" experiment, his studies showed that sixty percent of ordinary people would agree to obey an authority figure even to the point of severely hurting another human being. (Milgram 347).