Milgram and Zimbardo - Ethics and Usefulness
Read the material on Milgram & Zimbardo and explain which study is the most useful in understanding human behaviour in a social situation (focusing on the methods used and findings obtained) and which study is the most unethical.
The study of social psychology, particularly conformity, is very difficult to conduct both ethically and accurately in order to be able to obtain useful results. In the studies done by Milgram and Zimbardo, ethics were definitely breached but to what extent were these experiments useful, and which one offered the most insight into human behaviour? While both Milgram and Zimbardo’s methods were flawed and unethical towards the participants I believe that the ends of the Milgram experiment justified the means to a fuller extent. It seems that while both methods were quite brutal for the participants there was not as much long-term stress and fear for the participants of the Milgram experiment compared to those of Zimbardo. Without the intention to sully the stress that the participants of the Milgram experiment did go through, it is obvious that six days locked in a prison cell is bound to do more long term psychological damage and create more stress to find almost the same findings, that humans will conform to the roles that they are set into. If participants are set into a role to be inferior to authority they will obey, just as if participants are set into a role of authority they will act accordingly. While the Zimbardo experiment shows a more social representation as it was a group of people instead of just two, I don’t believe that the usefulness of the results would be justified due to the methods used. In the Milgram experiment, even some of the participants admitted to learning something of personal importance through the experiment, therefore showing that not only was there a sort of personal usefulness but also social and psychological usefulness. All those who were questioned before the Milgram experiment thought that
The study of social psychology, particularly conformity, is very difficult to conduct both ethically and accurately in order to be able to obtain useful results. In the studies done by Milgram and Zimbardo, ethics were definitely breached but to what extent were these experiments useful, and which one offered the most insight into human behaviour? While both Milgram and Zimbardo’s methods were flawed and unethical towards the participants I believe that the ends of the Milgram experiment justified the means to a fuller extent. It seems that while both methods were quite brutal for the participants there was not as much long-term stress and fear for the participants of the Milgram experiment compared to those of Zimbardo. Without the intention to sully the stress that the participants of the Milgram experiment did go through, it is obvious that six days locked in a prison cell is bound to do more long term psychological damage and create more stress to find almost the same findings, that humans will conform to the roles that they are set into. If participants are set into a role to be inferior to authority they will obey, just as if participants are set into a role of authority they will act accordingly. While the Zimbardo experiment shows a more social representation as it was a group of people instead of just two, I don’t believe that the usefulness of the results would be justified due to the methods used. In the Milgram experiment, even some of the participants admitted to learning something of personal importance through the experiment, therefore showing that not only was there a sort of personal usefulness but also social and psychological usefulness. All those who were questioned before the Milgram experiment thought that