Arguably, Milgram’s study concerning obedience to authority is among the most iconic investigations in the history of psychology. This study has been able to attract a wide range of views concerning its implications in the field of psychology. Scholars have continued to debate the role played by Milgram in the demonstration of the extent to which people may engage in evil acts in the course of the daily lives as well as some limitations associated with psychological research. Arguments have continuously been shared and propagated concerning the implication of obedience and kind of authority contained with paradigm advanced through the Milgram's study. Regarding obedience and conformity to authority, the study by Helm and Morelli (2009) demonstrates that people appear to have the desire to act as good subjects who can be obedient to authority and abide by it.
The information obtained from this study indicates that people are more likely to obey the authority than getting involved in good deeds. Furthermore, the investigation by Zimbardo about conformity to social roles revealed that people have a higher tendency of conforming to social roles without pay much attention to their overall impacts in their lives. In that respect, people will most likely rush to conform to social norms and roles that are contradictory to their ethos and moral principles. It is also clear from the studies conducted through Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles that situational factors have considerable responsibility in influencing the manner in which people are likely to behave in the society (Brady & Logsdon, 2008). In this regard, the study by Zimbardo leads to the conclusion that conformity to social roles is among the important behaviors that are often displayed by humans in the course of their daily lives since they find it difficult to avoid.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Benefits, Knowledge, and Insights gained from these Studies
The benefit of Milgram's study on obedience to authority is that it helps in enlightening scholars and the entire humanity concerning the unique strength that is inherent in humans that makes them have the tendency of obeying wrong orders and destructive authorities. Such authorities and orders are often contradicting and going against their ethics and principles of morality. Consequently, they may end up committing acts that are not comparable with their conscious or own initiatives. From the Milgram's study on obedience to authority, one gains some useful insights and knowledge that can be used in managing of interacting with people. The argument by Milgram indicates that people will relinquish responsibilities to their subjects upon acknowledging that the right of such authorities to direct and guide their actions (Haslam, Loughnan & Perry, 2014). Moreover, these authorities often play a critical role in the definition of things that are perceived to be right or wrong.
The Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles is beneficial in the sense that it provides an understanding of the manner in which different personalities can be swamped while in positions of authority. Moreover, the experiment by Zimbardo demonstrates that ideological and social factors have a unique and significant role to play in determining how people behave in response to external forces rather than following personal judgments. The acknowledgment by Zimbardo people will always tend to succumb to the requirements of the existing systems. Part of the insights given by the Zimbardo's experiment is that it appeared to demonstrate and indicate the manner in which subjects tend to react to the specific needs associated with a given situation as opposed to referring to their internal beliefs or morals (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).
Impact of the Studies regarding the Effects on the Human Participants
The human participants in Milgram's study on obedience to authority were considerably impacted. In that respect, the procedure used in the experiment involved the pairing of the human participants where they were able to draw different behaviors and personality traits to assist in the establishment of the one that is regarded as the teacher or the learner (Haslam, Loughnan & Perry, 2014). The fixing of the draw in this particular experiment was aimed at ensuring that human participant always remained to the teachers whereas thee learned was among the confederates identified by Milgram. In this case, the Confederates were made to pretend and act like real participants. In Milgram's study, the human participants were influenced to the extent that they were able to acknowledge and abide by the orders that issued by the existing authorities to the extent of going against their moral principles (Helm & Morelli, 2009).
Human participants tend to orders from other people whenever they acknowledge their authority as being legally based or morally right. In the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles, human participants were impacted in such a way that had no choice but to follow the existing rules. In this case, three different types of participants identified as guards. The first category of guards was made to demonstrate both fairness and toughness by strictly following the prison rules. The second category involved those who were perceived as good since they were made to express certain favors to prisoners without punishing them whereas the third category comprised of participants who were largely hostile. The third category of participants was influenced to the extent that their hostility was demonstrated by the acts towards humiliation of the prisoners (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).
Controversies in the Studies and APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Ethics
The controversies surrounding Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles and Milgram's studies on obedience to authority among other studies have played a significant role in shaping ethical principles as well as the code of ethics for psychologists. One of such ways is a where scholars have been left debating whether ethical principles guided the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment or it was entirely unethical. In that regard, there have been arguments citing unethical tendencies by suggesting that the experiments were extremely dangerous before the introduction of the APA psychology codes (Helm & Morelli, 2009). Even though Milgram's experiment has also been considered as unethical, Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment appears to violate more fundamental ethical principles. It is also argued that the code violations experienced in the two different experiments go beyond just the violation of the ethical tenets governing their physical application, but they include psychological and mental effects.
Nonetheless, others have argued against the existence of controversies that are said to be surrounding Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles and Milgram's studies on obedience to authority. To that extent, they claim that that the prisoners in the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment were ready and mentally for mentally this particular mentally challenging experiment. The information that was obtained through these experiments was not worth the risks that were faced by the human subjects. This is because there are serious violations of ethical principles and governing human rights and human dignity. In particular, the Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment violated and broke some APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists as well as the code of ethics. For example, there was no prior explanation of the procedures, outcomes or possible dangers associated with the experiment to the participants (Brady & Logsdon, 2008). Moreover, the experimenters did not bother to ensure that the volunteers were protected from danger or harm.
References
Brady, F., & Logsdon, J. (2008). Zimbardo's "Stanford Prison Experiment" and the relevance of social psychology for teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 7 (9), 703-710. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25071821
Haslam, N., Loughnan, S., & Perry, G. (2014). Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. Plos ONE , 9 (4), e93927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093927
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the "Nature" Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies show. PLoS biology , 10 (11), e1001426.
Helm, C., & Morelli, M. (2009). Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment: Authority, Legitimacy, and Human Action. Political Theory, 7 (3), 321-345. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190944
