Introduction to psychology PDF

Introduction to psychology

Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Analysis......................................................................................................................................2
Critical evaluation of Milgrams’s Study of obedience on the validity of contribution.........2
Critical evaluation of Zimbardo’s Stanford’s prison study on validity of contribution.........4
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7
Reference List............................................................................................................................8
1 | P a g e

Introduction
The psychological factors are considered to be the key notions that can change the human
behavioral perspective. Situation change plays a pivotal role in changing human behavior.
This study will unfold the obedience of human behavior and change of human behavior due
to the power structure. People tend to follow the people whom they admire the most. They
prefer to follow an authoritative figure. The figure may be famous for his ideology or brutal
by nature. The ardent following changes their own behavior as they are psychologically
motivated by the authoritative figure they are following. Apart from that, the change in
people’s behavior is also notable in a different power structure. For example, the behavior of
jail guards would always show supremacy over the criminals. They behave in the worst
manner with them. Thus, the change in people's behavior due to particular influence and
situation has been analyzed in his study on the context of Milgram’s theory of obedience and
Zombardo’s Stanford’s prison experiment. Milgram’s theory of obedience has analyzed the
importance of influence on changing the behavioral perspective of the people. Zombardo’s
Stanford’s prison experiment will analyze the change of behavioral due to the situation and
power structure. The criticism of both the theories will be analyzed in this study on the
context of validity of contribution. The concluding part of the study will summarize the entire
discussion and will highlight the future psychological prospect of behavioural change.
Analysis
Critical evaluation of Milgrams’s Study of obedience on the validity of
contribution
Milgram’s experiments to develop a theory of obedience
Milgram's theory of obedience defines the obedience of the people towards their master. The
level of psychological obedience depends on the moral or legal perfection of the authoritative
figure(Bègue et al., 2014). Milgram’s experiences were introduced to by hiring 40 male
participants with a teacher. Each of the participants was entwined in a chair with electrical
wire. The learner ordered the experimenter to inject electricity if any participant fails to
provide an answer. Milgram came to the conclusion of his theory through this experience that
people use to obey the authoritative figure if they find them legally perfect(Klikauer, 2014).
2 | P a g e

Criticism of Milgram’s experimental concept
This experiment was strongly criticized for not being responsible towards the participants.
According to the critics, the participants had a horrific experience during the psychological
experiment of Milgram(Brannigan, Nicholson & Cherry, 2015). However, Milgram has not
shown any kind of responsibility for their wellbeing. On the contrary, the social psychology
states that the research participants can be harmed during any research work which is not
unethical(Baumrind, 2015). However, Baumrind denied the justification stating that the
experiment was done in the Nazi death camp where people generally stay traumatized. Thus,
this conclusion made my Milgram is not flawless because the justification of human nature of
obedience cannot be studied by comparing normal human behaviour and behaviour in the
Nazi death camps(Hollander, 2016).
The theory of Milgram has experimented in the Nazi death camp. The psychological
perspective in death camp remains always negative and mournful. The real characteristic of
human behaviour cannot be brought out from the participants belongs to the Nazi death
camp. Thus, the conclusion he brought in this theory may not be perfect(Baumrind, 2015).
Milton’s theory of obedience and criticism on lack of concrete situation
The characteristic maintains order given by some authoritative power without analyzing its
authenticity. As per Milgrams’ theory, the order maintenance can go to the extent of
genocide(Bègue et al., 2014). People show the intention to obey the order whenever they find
that the person is legally or morally perfect, Thus, psychological morality plays a crucial role
in managing the people’s behaviour. However, critics say that Milgram’s theory lacks the
philosophical aspect of obedience (Brannigan, Nicholson & Cherry, 2015). Milgram’s theory
has not on people’s nature of obedience during the concrete situation. The concrete situations
generally define the situation which can be felt and experienced. This situation may clarify
the level of obedience of the follower to their authority(Bègue et al., 2014). However,
Milgram’s theory has omitted the part of the situational reaction.
Milgram’s experiments on experiments of obedience through prod
Power controls human nature. The characteristic aspect of human nature can be changed due
to power. Power can be psychologically imposed on various people to make some blind
3 | P a g e

followers(Haslam, Reicher& Birney, 2014). The followers never judge right or wrong of the
activities of the people they are following. Milgramstated that the followers generally follow
the power. They use to maintain the words of the power, not the person. They only require
legal justification of the activity of the power(Haslam, Reicher& Birney, 2014). Thus, to
analyze the effectiveness of the followership power Milgram used several prods for his
research participants to provide concrete information of his theory. The prods were divided
into four parts prod 1, prod 2, prod 3 and prod 4(Baumrind, 2015).
Criticism of Milgram’s use of prods
This prod experimental process of Milgram was greatly criticized by some researchers. The
researchers stated that the use of prods for the participants in the experiment is unable to
attain actual psychological response from the participants(Hollander, 2016). The series of
psychological prods contained withthe questions like
 Prod 1: Please continue
 Prod 2: The experiment wants the participant to continue
 Prod 3: It is necessary for the participant to continue and
 Prod 4: The participant had no further choice left but to continue
The critics are of the opine that it would be an injustice to announce the participants
disobedient if he cannot respond to any of this psychological prod. However, there are several
prods are there where the participants can be responsive(Haslam, Loughnan & Perry, 2014).
Psychological prods are generally used to understand people’s level of obedience. Thus, some
other prods could be used by Milgram. The criticism has made it clear that the obedience
theory of Milgram lacked adequate information, response and effective psychological
prods(Perry, 2015). Thus, the outcome of Milgram’s theory is not flawless. Moreover, the
psychological aspect of human behavior cannot be understood from Milgram’s theory of
Obedience(Perry, 2015).
Critical evaluation of Zimbardo’s Stanford’s prison study on validity of
contribution
Zimbardo’s prison experiment was done in the basement of the Stanford University. The
experiment mainly builds a simulated environment of the prison. 21 volunteers were
recruited for the study. The volunteers were cheeked for physical and mental stability. After
checking 10 volunteers were made prisoners and the rest 11 were made the guards of the
4 | P a g e

prison (Zimbardo, 2015). The main aim of the study was to evaluate the social behavior one
performs in the prison environment that affects the relationship between the guards and the
prisoners. As psychological researcher Zimbardo wanted to analyze the reasons behind the
change in the psycho social behavior among the guards and the prisoners.
Analysis of banality of Evil theory- The experiment was designed considering different
theories in mind. This theory includes the Banality of the evil theory. According to the
researchers this banality of evil is analyzed effectively to find the validity of contribution to
psychology(Zimbardo, 2015). The standard prison experiment comprises of average non
pathological ordinary men in the experiment. This was done to analyze the behavior of the
ordinary person in specific situational settings. There are presences of dispositional factors
those are used to determine the evil notions of the person(Pezzani, 2017). On the contrast
According to the researchers Dispositional perspective plays a role same as the personality
factors play in depicting certain specific behaviors of the humans. The main analysis is here
explains that the volunteers of the experiments were not sadistic and had behavioral
symptoms of a normal person. According to the researchers in the simulated environment
the change in the behavioral pattern had occurred. This is the main argument of the banality
of evil theory in the Standard prison experiment of Zimbardo (Pezzani, 2017). By analyzing
the theory it may be implied that ordinary persons with perfect cognitive function can be
compelled to perform evil works by manipulating the situations.
Analysis of situational perspective- Situation perspective is another theory that is included
with the banality of the evil theory in the Standard prison experiment of Zimbardo. The
banality of evil runs parallel to these theories. The situations perspective describes the
situation as one of the parameters for change in the psychological behavior of the guards.
Since in the experiment there was an absence of the commanding authority. The guards were
given the authority to set rules to control the prisoners (Burdman, 2016). According to the
researchers in this kind of social psychological dynamics of the situation is to be analyzed in
an effective way. The absolute power given to the guards enables them to perform de
individuating practices. The dependency of the prisoners on the guard increases due to the
gap in the in the power during the Standard prison experiment by Zimbardo (Burdman, 2016).
The researcher’s critics the point that there could have been establishment of a central
authority in establishing rules inside the SPE. It would have helped in distinguishing the good
traits and the bad traits of different Psychological components of the guards (Carrigan, 2015).
5 | P a g e

Analysis of dispositional perspective- Another important perspective of the standard prison
experiment of Zimabardo is the dispositional perspective. The dispositional perspectives are
analyzed and criticized by the researchers (Ireland and Adams, 2015). In the SPE normal
young men were chosen by measuring different components like orderliness, truth
worthiness, stability of mind, activeness, empathy and masculinity. These parameters were
tested with the notion that this guards will not act irrationally in the simulated prison settings.
On the contrary in the experiment it is seen that the personality behavior were not predicted
in an effective manner. The ultimate power changed the behavioral pattern of the guards that
slowly unfolded during the standard prison experiment of Zimbardo (Ireland and Adams,
2015). The critical analysis of the researchers explains that the variance among the behavior
traits examined before the experiment and the behavioral pattern found during the experiment
were unpredictable. It implies that the situation and the distribution of power has great
amount of contribution on the social and psychological behavior of the human beings
(Carrigan, 2015).
Analysis of Variance among the behaviors of guard -Variance among the behavior of the
guard is the standard Prison experiment is very much important and needs to be studied in a
proper manner. This component helps to analyze the validity of the work to the contribution
in the subject matter of psychology (Lambert, Liu and Jiang, 2018). The discontinuing traits
are contrasting with the situations theory. In the Standard prison experiment of Zimbardo
According to the researchers only three prisoners out of the eleven prisoners were categorized
as bad guards. They were categorized according to the abusive nature of the guards
(Zimbardo, 2016).
On the contrary, it is depicted by the researchers that if the situation is overpowering the
personality components then there is less possible description of this kind of behavioral
difference done in the study. As opined by the researchers if the Standard prison experiment
is analyzed from the dispositional perspective then it fails to deliver social role’s adaption
among the participants. The main reason is the personality difference and the basic difference
that occur in identifying particular traits (Dunn, 2016). Moreover the study mainly focuses
on the roles and responsibility of the participants due to the environmental or the situational
perspective. Another important criticism about the study is the demand characteristics. The
demand characteristics are the willful power of any individual to act according to the roles in
a psychological experiment (Dunn, 2016). The demand characteristics should be subtracted to
extract the right result of socio psychological experiment.
6 | P a g e

Conclusion
To conclude the Milgram’s theory of obedience was done mainly to analyze the social
behavior of the humans. He mainly designed for prods and answers were required from the
prods. It is concluded that if any one answer is not given by individual he is disobedient.
Later criticism and analysis explained that this process was not correct. The study was unable
to analyze the concrete human behaviors in the practical situations. The standard prison
experiment and the study performed by Zimbardo were to describe the situation, dispositional
and behavioral variance among the individuals of the study. A simulated prison environment
was created for the study. The experiment is analyzed and criticized as it fails to describe the
dispositional perspective of the study. There is gap among the predicted and observable
behavioral variance in the human behavior during the course of the study. The banality of evil
theory is explained in the experiment in an effective manner.
7 | P a g e

Reference List
Baumrind, D. (2015). When subjects become objects: The lies behind the
MilgramlegendPerryGina, Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the
Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. New York, NY: The New Press, 2013. 352
pp. ISBN 9781595589217 (hbk). Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 690-696. doi:
10.1177/0959354315592062
Bègue, L., Beauvois, J., Courbet, D., Oberlé, D., Lepage, J., & Duke, A. (2014). Personality
Predicts Obedience in a Milgram Paradigm. Journal Of Personality, 83(3), 299-306. doi:
10.1111/jopy.12104
Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to the special issue:
Unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 551-563. doi:
10.1177/0959354315604408
Burdman, J. (2016). Between banality and radicality: Arendt and Kant on evil and
responsibility. European Journal Of Political Theory, 147488511664072. doi:
10.1177/1474885116640725
Carrigan, J. (2015). Inside the institution of the Prison: A Researcher’s Perspective. Journal
Of Prison Education And Reentry, 2(1). doi: 10.15845/jper.v2i1.730
Dunn, D. (2016). “It’s Still a Prison to Me”: A New Dramatic Film Portrayal of the Stanford
Prison Experiment. Psyccritiques, 61(3). doi: 10.1037/a0040008
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., Reicher, S., & Birney, M. (2014). Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in
an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by
Orders but by Appeals to Science. Journal Of Social Issues, 70(3), 473-488. doi:
10.1111/josi.12072
Hollander, P. (2016).Revisiting the Banality of Evil: Contemporary Political Violence and the
Milgram Experiments. Society, 53(1), 56-66. doi: 10.1007/s12115-015-9973-4
8 | P a g e

Ireland, J., & Adams, C. (2015). Implicit cognitive aggression among young male prisoners:
Association with dispositional and current aggression. International Journal Of Law And
Psychiatry, 41, 89-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.03.012
Klikauer, T. (2014). Book Review: Milgram and obedience to organizational
authorityObstacles to Ethical Decision-Making—Mental Models, Milgram, and the
Problem of Obedience.
WerhanePatriciaH.HartmanLauraPincusArcherCrinaEnglehardtElaineE.PrichardMichael
S.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. xi + 246 pp. £ 55/US$ 72. ISBN:
9781107000032 (hbk). Organization, 21(6), 947-951. doi: 10.1177/1350508413503966
Lambert, E., Liu, J., & Jiang, S. (2018). An Exploratory Study of Organizational Justice and
Work Attitudes Among Chinese Prison Staff. The Prison Journal, 98(3), 314-333. doi:
10.1177/0032885518764919
Perry, G. (2015). Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions
of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiments. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 622-
638. doi: 10.1177/0959354315604235
Pezzani, F. (2017). The Banality of Evil. Business And Economics Journal, 08(02). doi:
10.4172/2151-6219.1000295
Zimbardo, P. (2015). Message of Prof. Philip Zimbardo. European Journal Of Psychology
And Educational Studies, 2(3), 65. doi: 10.4103/2395-2555.190469
Zimbardo, P. (2016). We Are all Prisoners or Guards in Our Self-Imposed Psychological
Prison. Psyccritiques, 61(3). doi: 10.1037/a0040091
9 | P a g e