Study Notes on Conformity and Obedience: Milgram and Zimbardo

Exam Format: Identical to Exam One
Location: Anywhere in the world
Date: Friday
Duration: From Midnight to Midnight
Resources: Allowed to use any resources
Preparation Materials: Study guide will be provided along with posted lectures on campus
Expectation: Students are advised to do the work themselves
Future Exams: Exams 3 and 4 will follow the same format

Topics to Cover: Two readings related to conformity and obedience:
- Stanley Milgram's Study
- Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment
Importance of Attention: Key details from Zimbardo's work may appear in a quiz at the end of the class

Background Importance: Research aimed to understand the obedience demonstrated during the Holocaust
- Questions about why individuals followed orders despite orders being morally wrong
- Historical context: Soldiers faced no immediate personal threats for disobedience
- Challenged notions of cultural predispositions towards obedience, specifically questioning if it's a German characteristic
Hypothesis: Assess how Americans would respond to authority

Location: Conducted at Yale University (Connecticut, New Haven)
Participant Recruitment:
- Advertised with compensation of $4 plus 50 cents for fare (roughly equivalent to $20 today)
- Target demographic included working adults, particularly men (no college students)
- A variety of professions were sought (clerks, city employees, factory workers, salespeople), enforcing a social class balance in the sample
Experiment Setup: Two participants (one real, one a confederate actor)
- All participants believed they were randomly assigned roles as "teacher" or "learner"
- Milgram appeared as a legitimate authority figure in a lab coat, creating a perception of legitimacy

Learning Task: Involves memorizing pairs of words with the supposed effect of negative reinforcement through electric shocks
- Participants administered shocks that increased in severity with each incorrect answer
- The actor (learner) pretended to express increasing distress with higher voltage shocks, including claims of heart conditions
Authority Influence: When participants objected, Milgram reassured them that he would take full responsibility and encouraged them to continue
Outcomes Recorded: The maximum voltage delivered was recorded, highlighting the stages at which participants expressed reluctance or stopped obeying

Percentage of Obedience:
- 65% (about two-thirds) of participants delivered the maximum voltage of 450 volts
- Even with signs of distress, 70% continued to obey despite emotional unease
- Variations in the experiment demonstrated different levels of obedience depending on situational factors (remoteness of the victim, proximity of authority)
Situational Factors Affecting Obedience:
1. Legitimacy of Authority: Authority figures need to appear legitimate to encourage compliance
2. Proximity of Authority: Closer authority figures increased obedience rates
3. Distance from Victim: Physical separation from the victim allowed individuals to comply easier
4. Role Models for Defiance: The presence of another who refuses to comply significantly reduced obedience rates
5. Dehumanization of Victims: Language and ideology that dehumanizes victims can facilitate obedience
6. Diffusion of Responsibility: Belief that one is following orders can alleviate personal accountability for actions taken
7. Gradual Escalation of Responsibility: Incremental increases in intensity make continuing to comply feel less significant
Conclusion Drawn by Milgram: Obedience is a common behavioral trait not limited to one's culture or character, rather a reaction to situational pressures

Criticism of Ecological Validity: The artificial nature of the lab setting and the use of actors raised questions about the relevance of findings to real-world scenarios
Follow-up Studies: Researchers attempted to replicate Milgram’s work with variations, including studies involving real animals (i.e., the use of puppies in studies by Sheridan and King, 1972)
- The circumstances surrounding gender and expectations were examined, finding different responses from male and female participants regarding authority and obedience

Background: Conducted in the 1970s by Zimbardo to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power in a simulated prison environment
Set-Up:
- Prison created in a Stanford psychology lab; participants randomly assigned as guards or prisoners
- Participants range were screened for mental health and stability, ensuring no prior criminal records
Methodology: Guards were encouraged to create their own rules and use improvisation, leading to unpredicted levels of cruelty and power dynamics

Role Internalization: Participants quickly adopted their roles, leading to blurred lines between simulation and reality
Intensity and Duration: Initially planned for two weeks, the experiment was discontinued after only six days due to extreme psychological effects on participants
Zimbardo's Role: He acted as a supervisor but influenced participant actions by nudging guards toward cruel behavior

Ethical Concerns: The lack of ethical oversight and failure to debrief or protect participants drew significant criticism
Conclusion: The experiment revealed concerning insights into human behavior, yet its validity remains debated due to the absence of strict scientific controls and ethical considerations

Importance of Ethical Guidelines in Research: Prompted the establishment of stricter regulations in psychological research
Understanding Human Behavior: The studies expand on understanding authority dynamics and conformity behaviors that persist in societal structures, reflecting how ordinary individuals can commit acts against their ethical beliefs even in social settings.