The Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment

[ShakeZula06]

I guess I'm stretching a little bit to post this in SMP. We really don't have a sociology forum. I contemplated putting this Psychology, but it is listed under "general gambling" and most the topics relate to poker or gambling. Plus compared to SMP not many post there, and I respect a lot of the SMP posters. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If the mods think it would be better suited elsewhere, I'll trust their judgement.

I first learned about these two experiments today in my sociology class (freshmen in college). If you're not familiar with the experiments wiki has articles on them here and here. The Standford prison experiment can be summed up like so from wiki-
[ QUOTE ]
The Stanford prison experiment was a psychological study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life, and the effects of imposed social roles on behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their assigned roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to genuinely dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. Despite the now highly unsanitary and out of control conditions evident, only one of 50 observers, graduate interviewer Christina Maslach, objected to the experiment. Zimbardo [leader of the experiment] then ended the experiment early.


[/ QUOTE ]
One interesting note is that whoever became a guard and who became prisoner was chosen at random-
[ QUOTE ]
The group of twenty-four young men was divided in half at random into an equal group of "prisoners" and "guards". Interestingly, prisoners later said they thought the guards had been chosen for their larger physical size, but in reality they had been picked by a fair coin toss and there was no objective difference in stature between the two groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
Under the 'results' title:
[ QUOTE ]
The experiment very quickly got out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment at the hands of the guards, and by the end many showed severe emotional disturbance.

[/ QUOTE ]
At an orientation the guards were told that they made the rules, and could do what they wanted except physical vilolence. What happened-
[ QUOTE ]
Prisoner "counts", which had initially been devised to help prisoners get acquainted with their identity numbers, devolved into hour-long ordeals, in which guards tormented the prisoners and imposed physical punishments including long bouts of forced exercise.

The prison quickly became unsanitary and inhospitable. Bathroom rights became privileges which could be, and frequently were, denied. Some prisoners were made to clean toilets using their bare hands. Mattresses were removed from the "bad" cell, and prisoners were forced to sleep on the concrete floor without clothing. Food was also frequently denied as a means of punishment. Prisoners endured forced nudity and even acts of sexual humiliation.

[/ QUOTE ]
It get's worse, one eye opener-
[ QUOTE ]
As the experiment proceeded, several of the guards became progressively more sadistic — particularly at night, when they thought the cameras were off. Experimenters said approximately one-third of the guards exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are college kids in this mock prison, and the guards know for a fact that they aren't actually in there for any type of punishment (not that I would find it OK if they were, but it does remove a possible justification the guards could use). Yet the guards, when given the opportunity made life a living hell for the prisoners, causing psycological damage to many.

Many people have said that this experiment in essence predicted the events of Abu Gharib and who knows how many other examples that may never see the light of day. Here is a list of eight articles comparing the two.

Now, to me this really questions the legitamacy of any type of forced authority (this includes things such as a War on drugs or territorially monopolized police [read: government provided police], not to mention things like Guantanomo(sp?) bay).

What type of justification is there for any type of imposed authority (government or mobsters that demand protection money for example) is there when we see just in these two examples that when people are given power to control another persons actions we see horrific results?

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." -Lord Acton

[madnak]

These are two great studies for insight into human nature. There are similar studies regarding conformity and group compassion. Í don't remember them, though.

[Phil153]

I'm surprised you haven't heard of these before.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, to me this really questions the legitamacy of any type of forced authority

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a bit of a stretch. Parenting requires forced authority. As do courts when operating on a criminal who refuses to recognize their validity. An effective military, police force, and certain organizations also require forced authority in order to function.

[ QUOTE ]
What type of justification is there for any type of imposed authority (government or mobsters that demand protection money for example) is there

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone will always take power and impose authority. It's the nature of human lust for power. Societies of any non trivial size have always been one of the following:

1. Tribal/Feudal with a leader backed by force of arms.
2. Unstable/Civil war (with militias, mafia, or other immoral power hungry groups)
3. Democratic with a government backed by force whose use is regulated by law, and whose laws are backed by force, the authority for which comes from a different branch to the executive.
4. Communistic/Dictatorship with the powerful backed by force whose use is unregulated/unaccountable in practice.

Pick one that works. Or choose a new one and explain how it won't devolve into one of the above. Do powerful groups (including the government) tend towards evil? The answer is unequivocally YES. But that's the very reason we have government, and a separation of powers. It's the only system so far that's been capable of maintaining the checks and balances needed to stop any one person/group gaining too much power, or the means to be unaccountable. It's not perfect, but it does work.

[ QUOTE ]
when we see just in these two examples that when people are given power to control another persons actions we see horrific results?

[/ QUOTE ]
These were extremely contrived experiments. College males for example, are very much still "Lord of the Flies" type creatures. Very few are practically minded, emotionally intelligent, or civilized. I guarantee that the Stanford Experiment would have vastly different results with an older group of people, or even some other countries such as Australia. Americans are a bloodthirsty, power-lust-mad group of people.

Re the Milgram experiment, it was done at a time when people were highly trusting of authority (the 50s/60s) I'm not aware of this having been properly repeated in modern times where people are far more distrustful of (and some downright hostile towards) authority figures.

[flipdeadshot22]

I haven't even thought this out, but it seems pretty standard to me. The only personal experiences i've had with this type of experiment is being a pledge within a frat and having to deal with such abuse.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
There are similar studies regarding conformity

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_co...ty_experiments

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't even thought this out, but it seems pretty standard to me. The only personal experiences i've had with this type of experiment is being a pledge within a frat and having to deal with such abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent this bears out Phil's point about America. Hazing is a peculiarly American ritual (well not exactly, it also happens in a lot of militaries, but that also bears out the point about violent tendencies). In fact, there are no such things as frats and sororities here at all. The idea of forming some kind of secret boys-only club would be viewed as childish and perhaps vaguely homosexual.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hazing is a peculiarly American ritual

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because . . .

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of forming some kind of secret boys-only club would be viewed as childish and perhaps vaguely homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]


. . . describes precisely the experience many British men had in an upper class boarding school as children/teenagers.

[ChrisV]

Agreed, but it was my understanding that that sort of thing doesn't go on much in modern Britain. I could be wrong.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
Re the Milgram experiment, it was done at a time when people were highly trusting of authority (the 50s/60s) I'm not aware of this having been properly repeated in modern times where people are far more distrustful of (and some downright hostile towards) authority figures.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been done a few times recently. The results are the same. The first one that comes to mind is an episode of Derren Brown's TV show, and I know I've seen it elsewhere but I forget where. I remember that the results were basically the same as before though.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't even thought this out, but it seems pretty standard to me. The only personal experiences i've had with this type of experiment is being a pledge within a frat and having to deal with such abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

To some extent this bears out Phil's point about America. Hazing is a peculiarly American ritual (well not exactly, it also happens in a lot of militaries, but that also bears out the point about violent tendencies). In fact, there are no such things as frats and sororities here at all. The idea of forming some kind of secret boys-only club would be viewed as childish and perhaps vaguely homosexual.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly how frats are viewed in America by 90% of people who never join them. Pretty sure it's a relic of a bygone time that's just happened to survive in the US more than it is a true representative of American culture.