Hock

Social Psychology
- How behavior is influenced by that of others and how their behavior is influenced by yours
- Stanford Prison Study
o Psychology of imprisonment
o Cannot scientifically control prison environment
o Zimbardo belief that environment (situation) determines behavior more so than
internal nature
o Assign each person guard and prisoner
o Setting: basement of psychology building, tried to be as realistic as possible
o Participants: 24 college-age men, informed that there might be violations to personal
privacy and civil rights, less food
o Procedure: goal was to observe, record, and analyze behavior of prisoners and guards,
if simulations and roles that the men were placed into would be strong enough to
overcome their personal characteristics and behavioral tendencies
o Prisoners: realistic house arrest, stripped/searched etc. at police station, SIMULATE
humiliation, repression, and entrapment inmates experience
o Guards: work 8-hour shifts, live normal life when not on duty, no specific training for
their roles
o Results: guards humiliated prisoners, prisoners subservient to guards, could not
differentiate between role playing
o Recent applications: prison reform (abuse of prisoners)
o Conclusion: experiment terminated after 6 days because individual identities of the
participants had dissolved
- Conformity in determining behavior
- Bystander effect
o The more people who witness an emergency, the less likely anyone is to help
- Stanley Milgrams study of blind obedience to authority
Milgram Obey at any cost?
- Idea grew out of desire to investigate scientifically how people could be capable of carrying
out great harm to others simply because they were ordered to
- Theoretical basis was that humans have a tendency to obey other people who are in a position
of authority over them even if obeying them means that they violate their personal codes of
moral and ethical behavior
- Method
o Idea that participants ordered to administer electric shocks at increasing levels to
another person
o No one actually received any painful shocks
o Participants told that this was a study on the effect of punishment on learning
o Memorizing connections between various words
o Actual participant would always be the teacher, have to give punishment
- Results
o 26 of 40 proceeded to the top of shock scale

o All went to at least 300 (when participant banged against wall)

o All participants debriefed after finishing the experiment about true purpose of the
study
Discussion
o Surprising strength of participants tendency to obey
o The SITUATION carried a force of its own that somehow created an atmosphere of
obedience
o Extreme tension and anxiety manifested by the participants as they obeyed
experimenters commands
Significance of findings
o Repeated procedures have yielded similar results
o Found that physical, and therefore emotional, distance of the victim from the teacher
altered the amount of obedience
Highest level of obedience occurred when the learner was in another room and
could not be seen or heard (93%)
When in same room, rate of obedience dropped to 30%
o Physical distance of the authority figure to the participant also influenced obedience
Closer the experimenter, the greater the obedience
o When allowed to punish by using any level of shock, no one pressed higher than 45
volts
Criticisms
o Claims that unacceptable levels of stress were created in the participants
o Potential for lasting negative effects
o Validity of findings
o Focal point in debate over experimental ethics involving human participants
Recent applications
o Study by Thomas Blass found that obedience rates have not changed significantly
during the 40+ years since Milgrams findings
No difference in male/female obedience rates
o Researchers should be wary of conducting studies on Internet
Ethical violations i.e. invasion of privacy, obtaining informed consent, using
deceptive tactics online
o What should be done to protect participants from irresponsible, deceptive practices in
psychological research, while at the same time allowing for some deception when
absolutely necessary for scientific advancement?
Increased level of informed consent?