PSY 328 Module Five Activity Template
First, read the Shapiro Library articles, Psychologist Stanley Milgram Begins Obedience-to-Authority
Experiments, Stanford Prison Experiment, and Moving Personality Beyond the Person-Situation Debate.
Next, complete this template by replacing the bracketed text with the relevant information. Your
responses should each be about 2 to 5 sentences in length.
Analyzing Psychological Experiments
oDescribe the major takeaways from the Milgram experiments.
[Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments provided profound insights into the extent to
which individuals comply with authority figures, even when their actions conflict with personal
morality. In the study, participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric
shocks to a "learner" (an actor) who answered questions incorrectly. Despite hearing the
learner’s distress, 65% of participants continued administering shocks up to the highest voltage
level, illustrating the powerful effect of authority on human behavior (Milgram, 1963; Burger,
2009). Milgram introduced the concept of the agentic state, where individuals defer moral
responsibility to an authority figure, rationalizing their actions as mere compliance rather than
independent ethical judgment (Milgram, 1974). This finding challenged the assumption that only
inherently cruel individuals commit harmful acts. Instead, the experiment suggested that
situational pressures, rather than personality traits, drive obedience, particularly when authority
figures set expectations for behavior (Blass, 1999). The broader historical significance of
Milgram’s work is evident in its application to understanding authoritarian regimes. The study
provided psychological insights into historical atrocities, such as Nazi Germany, where
individuals followed destructive orders despite moral objections (Russell, 2018). The experiment
continues to serve as a cautionary model for assessing obedience in hierarchical institutions,
from military structures to corporate environments.]
oDescribe the major takeaways from the Stanford prison experiment.
[ Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment further reinforced the power of situational forces
in shaping human behavior. The study assigned participants to roles as prisoners or guards within a
simulated prison environment. Within days, the guards began exhibiting authoritarian and abusive
behaviors, while prisoners displayed emotional distress, submission, and learned helplessness (Zimbardo,
1973; Haney et al., 1973). This rapid behavioral transformation highlighted how social roles, and
environmental conditions can override individual moral codes, rather than cruelty being a fixed
personality trait (Haslam & Reicher, 2012). The guards framed prisoners as an out-group, fostering
dehumanization, which justified escalating mistreatment (Zimbardo, 2006). This aspect of the experiment
parallels real-world institutional abuses, demonstrating how power dynamics contribute to group-based
oppression. However, ethical concerns surrounding the experiment were significant. Several prisoners
experienced psychological breakdowns, prompting early termination of the study. The lack of researcher
intervention when distress escalated exposed participants to emotional harm, violating ethical principles
(Blum, 2018). Later analyses suggested that demand characteristics—expectations communicated by the
research setup—might have influenced behavior rather than purely situational effects (Haslam & Reicher,
2012)]
1
