Two psychological experimenters attempted to uncover the most brutal area of the human brain in their articles: Milgram 's "The Perils of Obedience" and Zimbardo 's "The Stanford Prison Experiment". The first and earliest of these experimenters was Stanley Milgram, who conducted his experiments at Yale University. He starts the article with information on testing whether or not a person would administer painful—and eventually lethal—shocks to other people when given the order by an authoritative person in the room with the ‘teacher’. His results were indeed surprising: twenty-five people out of forty administered lethal shocks when instructed. He includes excerpts from the experiment to add to his argument. The most shocking point he makes, however, is that this may be why Nazis were able to do terrible things to other people. The next experimenter is Philip Zimbardo, who conducted his study in a basement at Stanford that was set up as a realistic prison. He writes about how subjects were split into two groups at random: guards and prisoners.
…show more content…
Guards were banned from physically abusing prisoners, but they performed forms of psychological torture. The study, which was supposed to last two weeks, Zimbardo writes, had to be cut short at six days due to the condition of the prisoners. Zimbardo is shocked at the state of both the prisoners and guards. Both Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s experiments show that anyone can present sadistic tendencies under extreme circumstances, and the differences between positive and negative peer pressure, and how they effect choices.
The shock the world experienced after Stanley Milgram published his study was revisited when Philip Zimbardo published his study, the “Stanford Prison Experiment”. In both studies, test subjects developed sadistic tendencies, and these symptoms were shown in an outward manner, whether it be through laughing, smiling, or journaling about the pleasures of being in power (). Although Milgram denies that his subjects were, in fact, deriving pleasure from inflicting pain on others, his subjects show peculiar signs of gratification through maltreating another person: “I don’t know if you were watching me, but my reactions were giggly, and trying to stifle laughter. This isn’t how I usually am.”() This quote, from Mr. Braverman, demonstrates that Milgram’s subject may actually have become sadistic, even if was for a short amount of time. Zimbardo, however, acknowledges the fact that subjects in his experiment were hostile and includes the definition of sadism (Zimbardo 112). Shockingly, the prison guards were delighted in their new found power. According to European neurologist Sigmund Freud in his article “Humans are Born Violent” humans have a cruel aggressiveness buried deep inside them: “In circumstances that are favourable to it, when the mental counter-forces which ordinarily inhibit it are out of action, it also manifests itself spontaneously and reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration towards his own kind is something alien” (Freud 36). Therefore, it is fair to assume that under certain circumstances, all humans can exhibit sadistic tendencies. Yet, Milgram argues that people are inclined to perform despicable acts when they are following orders, in effort to please the leader presenting said orders. Milgram argues that his subjects shocked others out of a sense of obligation, not due to aggressive tendencies (Milgram 85). According to Michael Ent and Roy Barmeister, social experimenters from Florida State University, obedience can have serious consequences (Baumeister, Ent). They argue that obedience to authority is deeply ingrained in human nature, and that sometimes it produces violence. Zimbardo may argue differently due to the fact that the guards, who had no authoritative figure they were following outside of themselves, produced exceedingly sadistic crimes. Sadism is also affected by peer pressure. Another serious result of both experiments was the displaying of how peer pressure works to produce both frightening and reassuring results. As Milgram conducts his experiments, he opens another in which two actors influence most 'teachers ' to stop administering shocks when they do (Milgram 88). Therefore, Milgram can reinforce the idea that positive peer pressure has an effect on the decisions people make when faced with difficult scenarios. Zimbardo’s results, however, are arguably more scintillating. Due to the fact that his guards abused prisoners psychologically after the effects
Guards were banned from physically abusing prisoners, but they performed forms of psychological torture. The study, which was supposed to last two weeks, Zimbardo writes, had to be cut short at six days due to the condition of the prisoners. Zimbardo is shocked at the state of both the prisoners and guards. Both Milgram’s and Zimbardo’s experiments show that anyone can present sadistic tendencies under extreme circumstances, and the differences between positive and negative peer pressure, and how they effect choices.
The shock the world experienced after Stanley Milgram published his study was revisited when Philip Zimbardo published his study, the “Stanford Prison Experiment”. In both studies, test subjects developed sadistic tendencies, and these symptoms were shown in an outward manner, whether it be through laughing, smiling, or journaling about the pleasures of being in power (). Although Milgram denies that his subjects were, in fact, deriving pleasure from inflicting pain on others, his subjects show peculiar signs of gratification through maltreating another person: “I don’t know if you were watching me, but my reactions were giggly, and trying to stifle laughter. This isn’t how I usually am.”() This quote, from Mr. Braverman, demonstrates that Milgram’s subject may actually have become sadistic, even if was for a short amount of time. Zimbardo, however, acknowledges the fact that subjects in his experiment were hostile and includes the definition of sadism (Zimbardo 112). Shockingly, the prison guards were delighted in their new found power. According to European neurologist Sigmund Freud in his article “Humans are Born Violent” humans have a cruel aggressiveness buried deep inside them: “In circumstances that are favourable to it, when the mental counter-forces which ordinarily inhibit it are out of action, it also manifests itself spontaneously and reveals man as a savage beast to whom consideration towards his own kind is something alien” (Freud 36). Therefore, it is fair to assume that under certain circumstances, all humans can exhibit sadistic tendencies. Yet, Milgram argues that people are inclined to perform despicable acts when they are following orders, in effort to please the leader presenting said orders. Milgram argues that his subjects shocked others out of a sense of obligation, not due to aggressive tendencies (Milgram 85). According to Michael Ent and Roy Barmeister, social experimenters from Florida State University, obedience can have serious consequences (Baumeister, Ent). They argue that obedience to authority is deeply ingrained in human nature, and that sometimes it produces violence. Zimbardo may argue differently due to the fact that the guards, who had no authoritative figure they were following outside of themselves, produced exceedingly sadistic crimes. Sadism is also affected by peer pressure. Another serious result of both experiments was the displaying of how peer pressure works to produce both frightening and reassuring results. As Milgram conducts his experiments, he opens another in which two actors influence most 'teachers ' to stop administering shocks when they do (Milgram 88). Therefore, Milgram can reinforce the idea that positive peer pressure has an effect on the decisions people make when faced with difficult scenarios. Zimbardo’s results, however, are arguably more scintillating. Due to the fact that his guards abused prisoners psychologically after the effects