Ethical issues in Milgram’s work

The Milgram wor caused a lot of controversy. There are various ethical issue involved. As you probably guessed, the learner did nc actually receive any shocks, so that was not a probler However, many of the participants were put into a ver distressed state. As one person reported, "I observed a i тйinitially poised businessman enter the laboratory smilir and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to j twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching | point of nervous collapse." It is now accepted that it is ethical to put participants into such a state, and this line research has been abandoned. However, 84% of those wh took part in Milgram's studies said they were glad to haij done so, and only 1 % expressed negative feelings.

Human nature.

The other major controversy in Milgram's work concerned what the findings seem to tell us about human nature. They suggest that about half of the human race is cruel and sadistic. Evidence against this comes from the behaviour of the obedient participants. It would have been disturbing if they had looked relaxed and happy while giving severe electric shocks. In fact, however, most of them showed obvious tension and unease as they tried to come to grips with the moral conflict between obeying authority and respecting the rights of the learner.

Philip Zimbardo

In the 1960s, there were numerous reports of problems in American prisons. Many of these reports referred to brutal attacks by prison warders on the prisoners in their care. Why did this brutality occur? One possibility is that prison warders tend to have aggressive or sadistic personalities. Another possibility is that the social environment of prisons, including a rigid power structure, is mainly responsible.

Philip Zimbardo (1973) decided to study this issue in what has come to be known as the Stanford prison experiment!^ this experiment, emotionally stable members of society agreed to act as "warders" and "prisoners" in amock prisom Zimbardo was interested in seeing whether the hostility found in many real prisons would also be found in his mock prison. If hostility were found in spite of not using sadistic warders, this would suggest that the social environment of prisons creates hostility.

In the Stanford prison experiment, the prisoners could only eat at specified times. They needed the permission of a warder to do almost everything, including writing letters and going to the toilet. In all, there were 16 prison rules which the warders were asked to enforce.

What went on within the mock prison was so unpleasant I and dangerous that the entire experiment had to be stopped after six days instead of the intended fourteen. Violence and rebellion [ broke out within two days of the start. ТЪе prisoners ripped off) their clothing, and shouted and cursed a£ the warders. In return, I the guards put down this rebellion violently using fire extinguishers. They also played the prisoners off against one! another and harassed them almost constantly. One of the J prisoners showed such severe symptoms of emotional disturbance (disorganised thinking, uncontrollable crying and! screaming) that he had to be released after only one day. On the I fourth day, two more prisoners showed symptoms of severe) disturbance and were released.

There were some interesting changes in the behaviour of the warders and prisoners over time. The prisoners became mor and moreisubdued and submissive, often slouching and keeping their eyes fixed on the ground. At the same time, the use oi| force, harassment, and aggression by the warders increased steadily from day to day. It seemed that the warders began t<j enjoy the power to control other people, and the passive reaction of the prisoners encouraged them to exert more and more powe What is the main message of the Stanford prison experiment According to Zimbardo, the experiment showed the greai importance of the power structure within prisons. In his owf words, "Power is the most important variable in socia psychology and the most neglected."

Ethical issues.

Many critics argued that it was iu| acceptable ethically for Zimbardo to have exposed participants to such degradation and hostility, Can one rea justify a study in which four participants had to be releas because of "extreme depression, disorganised thinker uncontrollable crying and fits оГ rage"? Was it геааор&ЬДе for Zimbardo to stand by whjfe the guards forced prisoners to clean toilets with their bare hands, hosed them with fire extinguishers, and made them do push-ups with a guard standing on their back?

In reply, Zimbardo pointed out that he had tried to reduce any negative effects..on the participants by holding day-long debriefing sessions, in which the moral conflicts posed by the study were discussed. He also pointed out that most of the participants reported that they had learned valuable things about themselves. It is true that the study .was of value, but it is not clear that this begins to justify^cne level of degradation and physical assault that happened.