The Perils of Obedience presented by Stanley Milgram is an experiment which tests the willingness of a subject to induce pain on another human being. In the background, the experimenter attempts to coerce the subject into shocking the other human by using authoritative powers. Despite scholars predicting that many would disobey, a majority of the subjects were obedient to the experimenter and carried out the shock. In certain instances, subjects showed signs of individuation and dividuation. Gretchen Brandt, a subject of Milgram showed individuation during the study. When pressed by authority to deliver a powerful shock, Brandt followed her moral conscience and decided she could not do this to another person and defied authority. Conversely,
…show more content…
When the orders were given over the phone, the number of people who were obedient dropped. Additionally, when a second person of authority was present in the room and had conflicting viewpoints with the first, the subject generally followed their moral conscience and would not shock the human. This supports my belief that many people felt pressured into conducting the shock because of the pressure of the figure. If the power of the authoritative figure is weakened, then the subject is increasingly likely to disobey.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is an example of people conforming to the norm as well as a few instances of individuation. Conducted by Dr. Philip, the Stanford Prison Experiment placed students around the area in the roles as prisoners and guards and tested how people played their role once placed into into a simulated prison. Throughout the experiment, most of the participants, including Dr. Zimbardo as prison warden, conformed to their …show more content…
The first night of the experiment a small group rebelled stripping their clothes, and later in the experiment prisoner #419 rebelled refusing his release or he would not eat. Both instances are examples of individuation, where the subject follows their own conscience on what they should do and refuses to follow the pack.
The Stanford Prison Experiment took precautions prior to the experiment to ensure that the prisoners and guards were not currently suffering any mental health issues. Although, as admitted by Dr. Zimbardo, the study was missing an independent variable, thus could be seen as lacking credibility. I believe that the lack of an independent variable can be overlooked due to the drastic transformation each subject had since the beginning of the experiment. Each person reacted differently to the role, which can be seen through the first rebellion and prisoner
When the orders were given over the phone, the number of people who were obedient dropped. Additionally, when a second person of authority was present in the room and had conflicting viewpoints with the first, the subject generally followed their moral conscience and would not shock the human. This supports my belief that many people felt pressured into conducting the shock because of the pressure of the figure. If the power of the authoritative figure is weakened, then the subject is increasingly likely to disobey.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is an example of people conforming to the norm as well as a few instances of individuation. Conducted by Dr. Philip, the Stanford Prison Experiment placed students around the area in the roles as prisoners and guards and tested how people played their role once placed into into a simulated prison. Throughout the experiment, most of the participants, including Dr. Zimbardo as prison warden, conformed to their …show more content…
The first night of the experiment a small group rebelled stripping their clothes, and later in the experiment prisoner #419 rebelled refusing his release or he would not eat. Both instances are examples of individuation, where the subject follows their own conscience on what they should do and refuses to follow the pack.
The Stanford Prison Experiment took precautions prior to the experiment to ensure that the prisoners and guards were not currently suffering any mental health issues. Although, as admitted by Dr. Zimbardo, the study was missing an independent variable, thus could be seen as lacking credibility. I believe that the lack of an independent variable can be overlooked due to the drastic transformation each subject had since the beginning of the experiment. Each person reacted differently to the role, which can be seen through the first rebellion and prisoner