Zimbardo
The Stanford County Prison experiment by Zimbardo (1971) supports Milgram’s study. Zimbardo (1973) experiment took place in a pretend prison house which was created in the basement of Stanford University. This was to investigate the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner/prison guard. Participants in both studies had a difficult time ending the experiment. The participants felt they did not want to appear inconsistent or leave the experiment. Participant’s behaviour was in control by social/professional forces and environmental contingences, rather than their own personality traits or character power.
Bickman (1974) put together a field study where an experimenter approached people on the street and asked them to carry out small jobs for them, which would put them out of their own routine. The experimenter was dressed …show more content…
Orne & Holland (1968) blame Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism’. The participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner was not really receiving electric shocks. Research supports Milgram’s evidence, that without deception he would have had incorrect results. Rosenhan (1966) copied the study and people had heard of Milgram’s experiment and Rosenhan’s results were 70% as participants thought it was true. Milgram in his defence again explained if the participants were to know the truth that the experiment was not real, the results would have been different and this would have affected the end result.
The ethical concerns in the experiment were also argued by Baumrind (1964) ‘…. The feelings and rights of Milgram’s participants have been abused and inadequate measures were taken to protect them from stress and emotional conflict (Gross, 2015). However, in Milgram's defence he argued that participants had agreed to take part and some people could have left if they really wanted to. The participants had also a full
Bickman (1974) put together a field study where an experimenter approached people on the street and asked them to carry out small jobs for them, which would put them out of their own routine. The experimenter was dressed …show more content…
Orne & Holland (1968) blame Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism’. The participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner was not really receiving electric shocks. Research supports Milgram’s evidence, that without deception he would have had incorrect results. Rosenhan (1966) copied the study and people had heard of Milgram’s experiment and Rosenhan’s results were 70% as participants thought it was true. Milgram in his defence again explained if the participants were to know the truth that the experiment was not real, the results would have been different and this would have affected the end result.
The ethical concerns in the experiment were also argued by Baumrind (1964) ‘…. The feelings and rights of Milgram’s participants have been abused and inadequate measures were taken to protect them from stress and emotional conflict (Gross, 2015). However, in Milgram's defence he argued that participants had agreed to take part and some people could have left if they really wanted to. The participants had also a full