Week 3 Blog: Zimbardo and Milgram Experiments

“[I]t is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act."—Stanley Milgram

Today I’ll be discussing the Zimbardo and Milgram Experiments. 

The Zimbardo experiment is the Guard/Prisoner scenario, which demonstrated people’s reactions to assignment of roles—that of prisoner, and guard.  Phillip Zimbardo was exploring the “Psychology of Imprisonment.”  The final group of participants was randomly assigned to their roles, and their behaviours observed and recorded.  Originally scheduled for 2 weeks, it was cancelled after 6 days due to the extreme emotional and physical distress suffered by the inmates.  It is notable that all participants suffered to some degree, personality changes associated with long-term prisoners or guards.  Phillip Zimbardo has said that he, as the principal investigator, lost his own objectivity while running the experiment:  a grad student was the only observer who spoke up against it.

The Milgram experiment is the Learner/Teacher scenario, where the Teacher administers electric shocks in increasing doses to the Learner for wrong answers.  As the voltage increases, so do the cries of pain the Teacher hears.  The Teacher must decide to continue or stop the experiment, although the “Administrator” of the test commands the Teacher to continue.  Stanley Milgram was exploring the motivation of German guards at concentration camps in WWII. How could people allow such horrible things to happen? Unlike Zimbardo, who studied both roles of Prisoner and Guard, Milgram focused only on the person administering punishment—the Teacher.  The Learner was an actor employed by the study, and appears to be a controlled variable for all Teacher participants. Milgram completed his study, as no actual punishment was administered.

1.  How are the experiments similar?

Both explore obedience to authority, and both uncover very interesting facts about perceived and actual obedience.  For example, how one obeys authority, and administers authority.  They both explore challenges to authority, and what allows people to submit to authority, even when they disagree, or are morally offended, with the circumstances.  Both studies deceived the participants, and employed a number of coercion techniques to force participants to complete the experiment.  The Zimbardo and Milgram Experiments were trying to recreate real-life situations, where ordinary people are acted upon by authority figures, and carry out extraordinary actions.

2. What are the ramifications of the experiments?

The Zimbardo experiment illuminates how easily humans fall into expected ‘roles’, and how they can be manipulated into doing things that they would not do.  Stanley Milgram says this is due to “context”—we allow dentists to drill our teeth in the dental office, but we wouldn’t allow anyone to do it in any other circumstance.

Both studies examined and manipulated the group dynamics of participants; Zimbado’s experiment saw prisoners and guards separate into supportive groups; Milgram’s experiment reports that if another Teacher refused to continue the shocks, then other Teachers were more likely to also stop the experiment.

3.  What are the ethics of the experiments?

Ethics are a code of moral behavior, in personal, business, or scientific situations.  The Zimbado and Milgram experiments’ ethics, by today’s standards, are considered “unethical.”  This is because the two studies employed deception, and coercion on the participants.  The studies also inflicted severe emotional and physical distress to the participants; some carried the effects for a long time. 

After several scandals involving deceitful studies, ethical standards were put into place to regulate human research.  Today, studies involving human research must offer ethics training and certification to all researchers and employees involved, to ensure trials are ethical, and obtain “informed consent” from all participants to ensure they are fully aware of their rights.

4.  Any other thoughts and opinions about the experiments. 

I think it’s important to remember the intentions of Zimbardo and Milgram.  They were not looking to cause distress, but to answer questions about human behavior in stressful situations.  I think Zimbardo’s response to his results was particularly interesting; he made no attempt to hide his research or the results—which included failure to complete the study—and candidly shared his own personal transformation during the experiment. 

Phillip Zimbardo shares his points of view on his website dedicated to the experiment at: www.prisonexp.org

Stanley Milgram’s biographer, Dr. Thomas Blass, has dedicated a website to Milgram, at: www.stanleymilgram.com

5.  What ways are experiments successful? 

Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s experiments are successful because they discovered measurable data regarding the human response to authority in stressful situations.  Experiments attempt to recreate real life situations under controlled conditions, where variables can be manipulated and measured.  Experiments are successful when they have clearly defined theories and goals guiding the research, and obtain measurable data.  I think that experiments are successful, as long as the data is statistically relevant to the questions asked, or opens up new avenues of inquiry. 

6.  Can you think of an experiment you would want to conduct?

I worked in the medical field for several years, specifically in surgery.  I had the opportunity to observe the behaviour of surgeons, nurses, administrative staff, patients, and family members.  I observed the whole range of human behavior; including bullying, aggression, deception, coercion, passivity, and emotional distress.  My interests lie in analyzing the behavior of surgeons towards subordinates, especially nurses and patients.  I would like to measure the management behaviour of surgeons and their subordinates, especially looking at any bullying or coercion.  I wonder how this would compare to the corporate world, where one is not confronted so directly with the results of success or failure.

Our culture holds medical doctors and surgeons in high esteem; we assume their training and experience gives them authority over us.  I know some surgeons who do not exploit this perception, and I know some who do.  One particular surgeon was noted for his unethical treatment of patients, and bullying nurses who questioned his actions; he was reported to the hospital’s ethics committee several times before any action was taken or investigation opened.

For surgeons, I would measure age, gender, education level, size of practice-patients and employees, number of associates, types of hospital privileges, complaints made against the surgeon, age, gender, and education level of patients and employees. 

So, what do YOU think?