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

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. The ‘teachers’ could hear pre-recorded screams of pain from the ‘learner’.

Both experiments revealed the dark potential in human behaviour and were both topical. Nazi war crime tribunals were underway when Milgram started his study in which Nazi officials used the defence that they were simply following orders. After Zimbardo’s experiment there was rioting and escapes from U.S prisons.

Both studies have been criticised for their treatment of their human research subjects and raise important ethical issues concerned with research. A broad definition of ethics is ‘a branch of philosophy that deals with thinking about morality, moral problems, and judgements of proper conduct’.

In this essay I intend to examine the ethical issues raised by both the experiments by studying the present British Sociological Association statement of ethical practice and include academic criticism of the moral behaviour of the researchers.

The current statement of the BSA was revised in March 2002 and acknowledges the ethical codes of the social research association and the American sociological association among others. The statement consists of 62 points covering the 'fundamental aspects of professional sociology'. Three statements are of particular interest in relation to Milgram and Zimbardo's experiments.

13) Sociologists have a responsibility to ensure that the physical, social and psychological well being of research participants is not adversely affected by the research. They should strive to protect the rights of those they study, their interests, sensitivities and privacy, while recognising the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The volunteers that applied to Zimbardo’s tests were carefully controlled. After interviews and a battery of psychological tests, the two dozen judged to be the most normal, average and healthy were selected to participate, assigned randomly either to be guards or prisoners. Whether Zimbardo had made this decision so that his volunteers were least adversely affected by his research or because he wanted to prove that even ‘normal’ middle class people have the potential for obedience in the face of moral dilemma is debatable.

By the second day of his study prisoner no #8612 had already suffered an emotional breakdown. The participants in his experiment had become so absorbed in their roles that at first they were suspicious and thought that he could be faking it. Less than 36 hours into the experiment, Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage. Zimbardo said ‘In spite of all of this, we had already come to think so much like prison authorities that we thought he was trying to "con" us -- to fool us into releasing him’.

On day six Zimbardo ended his study prematurely. He had become shocked at the way at the guards had treated the prisoners especially when they thought they weren't being watched. Zimbardo later admitted, 'although we ended the study a week earlier than planned, we did not end it soon enough." The conditions of the experiment had "resulted in extreme stress reactions that forced us to release five prisoners, one a day, prematurely."

Milgram’s volunteers in comparison did not suffer for the length of time of Zimbardo’s, the individual studies only lasting twenty minutes. However 'Persons were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bit their lips, and groan as they found themselves increasingly implicated in the experimental conflict'. 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.

Both Milgram and Zimbardo offered their volunteers forms of post-experiment therapy. Zimbardo involving all concerned in a series of encounter sessions in which they shared their experiences. He hoped that these sessions would provide an adequate platform for ‘moral re-education’. Milgram ‘de-briefed’ his subjects and offered counselling. The debriefing included meeting the actor and having the purpose of the experiment explained.

Although there did not seem to be any psychological repercussions as a result of the two experiments the provision of counselling or debriefing does pose an ethical question. Is it morally acceptable to subject volunteers to trauma if this can be reversed afterwards through counselling?

The philosopher Bok has raised objections to this. She states that subjects may still endure psychological damage as the result of gaining self-knowledge. Even if a participant is debriefed would the knowledge that they had become a torturer or brutal prison guard by bearable to live with?

Gillet and Pigden in defence of this argument reply that ‘with luck, Milgram’s subjects will have had a short sharp lesson in the need for scepticism and critical thought. And if they failed to benefit this was hardly his fault’.

To summarise in regard to the ethics outlined in statement 13 both experiments lasted too long, caused short term psychological and physical damages to their participants and possibly longer term psychological damage even after counselling and debriefing, as the participants learnt unpleasant things about themselves.

A final ethical question in regard to those previously mentioned comes from Barbara Nicholas who argues that researchers do not have the right to inflict enlightenment on their subjects.

16) As far as possible participation in sociological research should be based on the freely given informed consent of those studied. This implies a responsibility on the sociologist to explain in appropriate detail, and in terms meaningful to participants,

What the research is about, who is undertaking and financing it, why it is being undertaken, and how it is to be disseminated and used.

In the Zimbardo experiment the participants were well aware of the conditions that they would be in. "It followed the guidelines of the Stanford human subjects ethics committee that approved it. There was no deception; all subjects were told in advance that if prisoners, many of their usual rights would be suspended and they would have only minimally adequate diet and health care during the study" .

Milgram clearly deceived his participants. The 'teachers' had no idea that the 'learners’ were actually actors, and that the seemingly arbitrary decision of whether they were teacher or learner was rigged. Of course this is the only way the experiment could have taken place- Milgram would certainly not have been allowed to oversee participants giving near fatal shocks to people even if these people had consented and were aware and happy to receive the shocks. The only way Milgram’s experiment could take place was to be based on deception.

Bok criticises Milgram’s lying to his participants arguing that knowledge is power, and that by lying to a participant Milgram undermined their freedom to make rational decisions. Milgram had redistributed power from the lied to to the liar.

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."