• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Compare and contrast the ethical issues raised by Milgram's experiments on obedience and Zimbardo's prison experiment'.

Extracts from this document...


Tom Fairfield 'Compare and contrast the ethical issues raised by Milgram's experiments on obedience and Zimbardo's prison experiment' The Zimbardo experiment took place in the summer of 1971 in Stanford University, California, and is one of the most famous contemporary social-psychological experiments. It was presided over by Philip Zimbardo and involved a group of eighteen students, nine of whom were assigned the role of prison warders and the remaining nine as prisoners. The basement of the university was turned in to a prison complete with recording surveillance equipment. The experiment was originally meant to last two weeks but was halted prematurely after six days. Zimbardo had become increasingly concerned by the behaviour of both prisoners and wardens, one of the volunteer prisoners describing the guards as 'Nazis'. Stanley Milgram's study on the conflict between obedience and personal conscience took place in 1965 and was equally controversial. The experiment was 'officially' about learning and memory. Volunteers were assigned the role of 'teacher' delivering electric shocks to 'learners' under the premise that they were exploring the effects of punishment on learning behaviour. The 'learners' unbeknown to the 'teachers' were actors. The 'teachers' were asked to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity as 'learners' gave incorrect answers to questions. All of the participants gave shocks of at least 300 volts to the learners. ...read more.


Symptoms were observed that were similar to those of a nervous breakdown. It is certain that volunteers in both experiments suffered psychologically and in the case of Zimbardo's experiment physically. Being led to believe that you are giving near fatal electric shocks to people and cleaning the inside of a toilet bowl with bare hands are both traumatic. The rebellion started by inmates in Zimbardo's experiment was put down with the use of carbon dioxide fire extinguishers. The longevity of both experiments itself poses an ethical question; Milgram's experiments went ahead even when 'the pattern of reluctant and pained obedience began to emerge'. Zimbardo admitted that, 'although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough'. This raises the question of whether some form of independent monitor is ethically necessary in such experiments. Zimbardo's experiment had already been viewed by many people in his department and from other outsiders, however it was only when Professor Christina Maslach observed the experiment that Zimbardo heard moral objection to it. Maslach has explained that the circumstances of her disapproval were that she was both romantically involved with Zimbardo and not working for him as a graduate student or colleague. If these explanations for her behaviour are to be given credibility, Zimbardo's staff are also worthy of a study in obedience. ...read more.


11) Although sociologists, like other researchers are committed to the advancement of knowledge, that goal does not, of itself, provide an entitlement to override the rights of others. This last point generally covers the ethical dilemma that surfaces when research in the nature of Milgram and Zimbardo's is undertaken. Do the means justify the end? The theoretical Utilitarian response to Milgram's work would be a positive one. For the experiments could be interpreted as benefiting the many at the expense of the few. This conforms to the utilitarian basic principle of 'greatest happiness for the greatest number'. Therefore the psychological pain, which the volunteers went through, was necessary to benefit the rest of society. This is a difficult theory to accept however as it can be attributed to all scientific research which would benefit everybody. Perhaps tellingly this can be related back to the original inspiration of Milgram's research, the treatment of Jews in the Second World War. Experiments carried out on Jewish prisoners in the war benefited the advance of science greatly. However very few people would see the pain and suffering of these people as a valid sacrifice for the benefit of wider society. I will conclude this essay with the thoughts of Zimbardo: "The ethical point is legitimate insofar as whom are you, as an experimenter, to give a person that kind of information about oneself. But my feeling is that that's the most valuable kind of information that you can have � and that certainly a society needs it. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Psychometrics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Psychometrics essays

  1. Milgram's study of obedience has been influential in the development of 'ethics'. Discuss the ...

    During the experiment the confederate made increasingly more errors. The confederate pretended the shocks were real by crying out in pain and claiming he had chest pains. Milgram and his team urged the participants to continue despite all of this, and the experiment was only terminated if the participant refused to go on four times.

  2. Critique of Philip G. Zimbardo's "The Stanford Prison Experiment".

    By far the most shocking revelation is that Zimbardo took part in the experiment himself! To scientifically set up and do research on a study is the task Zimbardo embarks on. But being part of ones own study is a recipe for adversity.

  1. Critically evaluate the ethical precautions incorporated into the Stanford Prison Experiment

    However, the prison simulation procedures were more detrimental than expected - subjects received a surprise arrest by city police outside their homes in conjunction with a humiliating prison induction procedure and brutal treatment from the subjects adopting the role of a 'guard'.

  2. Do Milgram's experiment's tell us anything about why people obey authority outside the laboratory?

    This would seem to parallel the perceived legitimate authority that policemen/women hold over us in the outside world. Just as the participants obeyed the experimenter, we obey the police. Milgram took account of this factor and in one of over twenty variations on the original experiment he relocated the experiment to a rundown office block in Bridgetown, Conneticut.

  1. Describe a study which investigates either conformity or obedience This essay is going to ...

    Zimbardo stopped the experiment after six days as he became concerned about how quickly each participant internalised into their roles and lost their own identity. Zimbardo himself pointed out that, "When prisoners were told they had been "denied parole", the prisoners returned docilely to their cells and that had

  2. An Ethical Consideration of the Work of Milgram - Stanley Milgram carried out a ...

    been learnt about defiance or obedience to authority and of course they could not know beforehand for previously stated reasons. Protection of Participants Of all the participants, 86% said afterwards that they were happy to have been part of the experiment, however, what about the other 14% among these presumably

  1. Free essay

    To what extent do the 'ends' justify the 'means' in ethically objectionable experiments such ...

    In addition, it is also important to ensure that participants should not face emotional stress that may lead to psychological or physical harm (BPS 2006). Milgram's experiment deceived participants, there were no actual electric shocks given by the equipment used, except the forty five volt sample used as a sample

  2. A consideration of the ends justifying the means of Milgram's research into obedience.

    If the participants became hesitant of continuing, the experimenter would urge them to carry on, saying "It is absolutely essential that you continue." and the like. The experimental validity of this experiment is threatened by whether the participants actually believed that the shocks were real.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work