Psychological Factors And Human Behavioural Change: An Analysis Of Milgram’s Theory Of Obedience And Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Milgram’s Theory of Obedience and Psychological Influence

The psychological factors are considered to be the key notions that can change the human behavioral perspective. Situation change plays a pivotal role in changing human behavior. This study will unfold the obedience of human behavior and change of human behavior due to the power structure. People tend to follow the people whom they admire the most. They prefer to follow an authoritative figure. The figure may be famous for his ideology or brutal by nature. The ardent following changes their own behavior as they are psychologically motivated by the authoritative figure they are following. Apart from that, the change in people’s behavior is also notable in a different power structure. For example, the behavior of jail guards would always show supremacy over the criminals. They behave in the worst manner with them. Thus, the change in people’s behavior due to particular influence and situation has been analyzed in his study on the context of Milgram’s theory of obedience and Zombardo’s Stanford’s prison experiment. Milgram’s theory of obedience has analyzed the importance of influence on changing the behavioral perspective of the people. Zombardo’s Stanford’s prison experiment will analyze the change of behavioral due to the situation and power structure. The criticism of both the theories will be analyzed in this study on the context of validity of contribution. The concluding part of the study will summarize the entire discussion and will highlight the future psychological prospect of behavioural change.

Critical evaluation of Milgrams’s Study of obedience on the validity of contribution 

Milgram’s experiments to develop a theory of obedience  

Milgram’s theory of obedience defines the obedience of the people towards their master. The level of psychological obedience depends on the moral or legal perfection of the authoritative figure(Bègue et al., 2014). Milgram’s experiences were introduced to by hiring 40 male participants with a teacher. Each of the participants was entwined in a chair with electrical wire. The learner ordered the experimenter to inject electricity if any participant fails to provide an answer. Milgram came to the conclusion of his theory through this experience that people use to obey the authoritative figure if they find them legally perfect(Klikauer, 2014).

This experiment was strongly criticized for not being responsible towards the participants. According to the critics, the participants had a horrific experience during the psychological experiment of Milgram(Brannigan, Nicholson & Cherry, 2015). However, Milgram has not shown any kind of responsibility for their wellbeing. On the contrary, the social psychology states that the research participants can be harmed during any research work which is not unethical(Baumrind, 2015). However, Baumrind denied the justification stating that the experiment was done in the Nazi death camp where people generally stay traumatized. Thus, this conclusion made my Milgram is not flawless because the justification of human nature of obedience cannot be studied by comparing normal human behaviour and behaviour in the Nazi death camps(Hollander, 2016).

Criticism of Milgram’s Theory of Obedience

The theory of Milgram has experimented in the Nazi death camp. The psychological perspective in death camp remains always negative and mournful. The real characteristic of human behaviour cannot be brought out from the participants belongs to the Nazi death camp. Thus, the conclusion he brought in this theory may not be perfect(Baumrind, 2015).

The characteristic maintains order given by some authoritative power without analyzing its authenticity. As per Milgrams’ theory, the order maintenance can go to the extent of genocide(Bègue et al., 2014). People show the intention to obey the order whenever they find that the person is legally or morally perfect, Thus, psychological morality plays a crucial role in managing the people’s behaviour. However, critics say that Milgram’s theory lacks the philosophical aspect of obedience (Brannigan, Nicholson & Cherry, 2015). Milgram’s theory has not on people’s nature of obedience during the concrete situation. The concrete situations generally define the situation which can be felt and experienced. This situation may clarify the level of obedience of the follower to their authority(Bègue et al., 2014). However, Milgram’s theory has omitted the part of the situational reaction.  

Power controls human nature. The characteristic aspect of human nature can be changed due to power.  Power can be psychologically imposed on various people to make some blind followers(Haslam, Reicher& Birney, 2014). The followers never judge right or wrong of the activities of the people they are following. Milgramstated that the followers generally follow the power. They use to maintain the words of the power, not the person. They only require legal justification of the activity of the power(Haslam, Reicher& Birney, 2014). Thus, to analyze the effectiveness of the followership power Milgram used several prods for his research participants to provide concrete information of his theory. The prods were divided into four parts prod 1, prod 2, prod 3 and prod 4(Baumrind, 2015).

This prod experimental process of Milgram was greatly criticized by some researchers. The researchers stated that the use of prods for the participants in the experiment is unable to attain actual psychological response from the participants(Hollander, 2016). The series of psychological prods contained withthe questions like

• Prod 1: Please continue
• Prod 2: The experiment wants the participant to continue
• Prod 3: It is necessary for the participant to continue and
• Prod 4: The participant had no further choice left but to continue

The critics are of the opine that it would be an injustice to announce the participants disobedient if he cannot respond to any of this psychological prod. However, there are several prods are there where the participants can be responsive(Haslam, Loughnan & Perry, 2014). Psychological prods are generally used to understand people’s level of obedience. Thus, some other prods could be used by Milgram. The criticism has made it clear that the obedience theory of Milgram lacked adequate information, response and effective psychological prods(Perry, 2015). Thus, the outcome of Milgram’s theory is not flawless. Moreover, the psychological aspect of human behavior cannot be understood from Milgram’s theory of Obedience(Perry, 2015).

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and Situational Analysis

Zimbardo’s prison experiment was done in the basement of the Stanford University. The experiment mainly builds a simulated environment of the prison.  21 volunteers were recruited for the study. The volunteers were cheeked for physical and mental stability. After checking 10 volunteers were made prisoners and the rest 11 were made the guards of the prison (Zimbardo, 2015). The main aim of the study was to evaluate the social behavior one performs in the prison environment that affects the relationship between the guards and the prisoners. As psychological researcher Zimbardo wanted to analyze the reasons behind the change in the psycho social behavior among the guards and the prisoners.

Analysis of banality of Evil theory- The experiment was designed considering different theories in mind. This theory includes the Banality of the evil theory. According to the researchers this banality of evil is analyzed effectively to find the validity of contribution to psychology(Zimbardo, 2015).  The standard prison experiment comprises of average non pathological ordinary men in the experiment. This was done to analyze the behavior of the ordinary person in specific situational settings. There are presences of dispositional factors those are used to determine the evil notions of the person(Pezzani, 2017). On the contrast According to the researchers Dispositional perspective plays a role same as the personality factors play in depicting certain specific behaviors of the humans. The main analysis is here explains that the   volunteers of the experiments were not sadistic and had behavioral symptoms of a normal person. According to the researchers in the simulated environment   the change in the behavioral pattern had occurred. This is the main argument of the banality of evil theory in the Standard prison experiment of Zimbardo (Pezzani, 2017).  By analyzing the theory it may be implied that ordinary persons with perfect cognitive function can be compelled to perform evil works by manipulating the situations.

Analysis of situational perspective- Situation perspective is another theory that is included with the banality of the evil theory in the Standard prison experiment of Zimbardo. The banality of evil runs parallel to these theories. The situations perspective describes the situation as one of the parameters for change in the psychological behavior of the guards. Since in the experiment there was an absence of the commanding authority. The guards were given the authority to set rules to control the prisoners (Burdman, 2016). According to the researchers in this kind of social psychological dynamics of the situation is to be analyzed in an effective way. The absolute power given to the guards enables them to perform de individuating practices. The dependency of the prisoners on the guard increases due to the gap in the in the power during the Standard prison experiment by Zimbardo (Burdman, 2016).   The researcher’s critics the point that there could have been establishment of a central authority in establishing rules inside the SPE. It would have helped in distinguishing the good traits and the bad traits of different Psychological components of the guards (Carrigan, 2015).

Analysis of Banality of Evil Theory in Standard Prison Experiment

Analysis of dispositional perspective- Another important perspective of the standard prison experiment of Zimabardo is the dispositional perspective. The dispositional perspectives   are analyzed and criticized by the researchers (Ireland and Adams, 2015). In the SPE normal young men were chosen by measuring different components like orderliness, truth worthiness, stability of mind, activeness, empathy and masculinity. These parameters were tested with the notion that this guards will not act irrationally in the simulated prison settings. On the contrary in the experiment it is seen that the personality behavior were not predicted in an effective manner. The ultimate power changed the behavioral pattern of the guards that slowly unfolded during the standard prison experiment of Zimbardo (Ireland and Adams, 2015). The critical analysis of the researchers explains that the variance among the behavior traits examined before the experiment and the behavioral pattern found during the experiment were unpredictable. It implies that the situation and the distribution of power has great amount of contribution on the social and psychological behavior of the human beings (Carrigan, 2015).

Analysis of Variance among the behaviors of guard -Variance among the behavior of the guard is the standard Prison experiment is very much important and needs to be studied in a proper manner. This component helps to analyze the validity of the work to the contribution in the subject matter of psychology (Lambert, Liu and Jiang, 2018). The discontinuing traits are contrasting with the situations theory. In the Standard prison experiment of Zimbardo According to the researchers only three prisoners out of the eleven prisoners were categorized as bad guards. They were categorized according to the abusive nature of the guards (Zimbardo, 2016).

On the contrary, it is depicted by the researchers that if the situation is overpowering the personality components then there is less possible description of this kind of behavioral difference done in the study. As opined by the researchers if the Standard prison experiment is analyzed from the dispositional perspective then it fails to deliver social role’s adaption among the participants. The main reason is the personality difference and the basic difference that occur in identifying particular traits (Dunn, 2016).   Moreover the study mainly focuses on the roles and responsibility of the participants due to the environmental or the situational perspective. Another important criticism about the study is the demand characteristics. The demand characteristics are the willful power of any individual to act according to the roles in a psychological experiment (Dunn, 2016). The demand characteristics should be subtracted to extract the right result of socio psychological experiment. 

Analysis of Situational Perspective in Standard Prison Experiment

Conclusion 

To conclude the Milgram’s theory of obedience was done mainly to analyze the social behavior of the humans. He mainly designed for prods and answers were required from the prods. It is concluded that if any one answer is not given by individual he is disobedient. Later criticism and analysis explained that this process was not correct. The study was unable to analyze the concrete human behaviors in the practical situations. The standard prison experiment and the study performed by Zimbardo were to describe the situation, dispositional and behavioral variance among the individuals of the study. A simulated prison environment was created for the study. The experiment is analyzed and criticized as it fails to describe the dispositional perspective of the study. There is gap among the predicted and observable behavioral variance in the human behavior during the course of the study. The banality of evil theory is explained in the experiment in an effective manner.

Reference List

Baumrind, D. (2015). When subjects become objects: The lies behind the MilgramlegendPerryGina, Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. New York, NY: The New Press, 2013. 352 pp. ISBN 9781595589217 (hbk). Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 690-696. doi: 10.1177/0959354315592062

Bègue, L., Beauvois, J., Courbet, D., Oberlé, D., Lepage, J., & Duke, A. (2014). Personality Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm. Journal Of Personality, 83(3), 299-306. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12104

Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 551-563. doi: 10.1177/0959354315604408

Burdman, J. (2016). Between banality and radicality: Arendt and Kant on evil and responsibility. European Journal Of Political Theory, 147488511664072. doi: 10.1177/1474885116640725

Carrigan, J. (2015). Inside the institution of the Prison: A Researcher’s Perspective. Journal Of Prison Education And Reentry, 2(1). doi: 10.15845/jper.v2i1.730

Dunn, D. (2016). “It’s Still a Prison to Me”: A New Dramatic Film Portrayal of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Psyccritiques, 61(3). doi: 10.1037/a0040008

Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An Empirical Synthesis of the Obedience Experiments. Plos ONE, 9(4), e93927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093927

Haslam, S., Reicher, S., & Birney, M. (2014). Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science. Journal Of Social Issues, 70(3), 473-488. doi: 10.1111/josi.12072

Hollander, P. (2016).Revisiting the Banality of Evil: Contemporary Political Violence and the Milgram Experiments. Society, 53(1), 56-66. doi: 10.1007/s12115-015-9973-4

Ireland, J., & Adams, C. (2015). Implicit cognitive aggression among young male prisoners: Association with dispositional and current aggression. International Journal Of Law And Psychiatry, 41, 89-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.012

Klikauer, T. (2014). Book Review: Milgram and obedience to organizational authorityObstacles to Ethical Decision-Making—Mental Models, Milgram, and the Problem of Obedience. WerhanePatriciaH.HartmanLauraPincusArcherCrinaEnglehardtElaineE.PrichardMichaelS.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. xi + 246 pp. £ 55/US$ 72. ISBN: 9781107000032 (hbk). Organization, 21(6), 947-951. doi: 10.1177/1350508413503966

Lambert, E., Liu, J., & Jiang, S. (2018). An Exploratory Study of Organizational Justice and Work Attitudes Among Chinese Prison Staff. The Prison Journal, 98(3), 314-333. doi: 10.1177/0032885518764919

Perry, G. (2015). Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiments. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 622-638. doi: 10.1177/0959354315604235

Pezzani, F. (2017). The Banality of Evil. Business And Economics Journal, 08(02). doi: 10.4172/2151-6219.1000295

Zimbardo, P. (2015). Message of Prof. Philip Zimbardo. European Journal Of Psychology And Educational Studies, 2(3), 65. doi: 10.4103/2395-2555.190469

Zimbardo, P. (2016). We Are all Prisoners or Guards in Our Self-Imposed Psychological Prison. Psyccritiques, 61(3). doi: 10.1037/a0040091