During the 60s and 70s a number of famous experiments took place to study obedience and conformity, including Milgram’s Obedience Study (Milgram 1963), and The Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo 1973). The experiments were conducted with the focus on inner conflict between one’s moral values and conscience, and obedience towards authority. Both experiments measured how far people would go when given an authoritative role that involved inflicting harm on others. It was shown that people are more likely to go against their morals to inflict harm on others when they are playing a role, conforming, or given persistent commands, and obeying. Although there are some discrepancies as everyone is likely to react differently given the situation it ultimately depends on the importance a person places on their morals and how they react under pressure.
Conformity is described as a, “type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group.” (McLeod, 2007) Conformity is much more common than manly people would expect; it can be seen in multiple aspects of everyday life, commonly within teenagers who try hard to follow trends in order to fit in with a group. This includes going against the morals and values they have been taught by their parents, such as engaging in underage drinking, for example. Although conformity does not always involve inflicting harm on others, it does revolve around going against one’s own beliefs.
The main aim or objective of Zimbaro’s prison experiment was to study brutality in American prisons and whether it was due to dispositional or situational influences. Zimbardo explored whether people would conform to the guard or prisoner role randomly given to them, and see how similar it would get to the level of brutality in real life prisons. The famed experiment clearly illustrates how situational forces along with peer pressure will influence behavior, people will quickly conform to social roles they are expected, or told by society, to play. It was essential for Zimbardo to make the experience as close to reality as he possibly could, for both prisoners and guards. Prisoners were ‘arrested’ at their homes and taken to ‘jail’ which started the humiliation process. Guards were all dress identically carrying, “a whistle around their neck and a billy club borrowed from the police.” (McLeod, 2007) they were given sunglasses to stop any form of eye contact with the prisoners, also building up the guard’s sense of power and authority. It is important to note that no physical violence was permitted but the guards were instructed to ‘maintain law and order.’ Almost immediately, the guards took this as an opportunity to assert their power by taunting the prisoners, insulting them, giving petty command and pointless, dehumanizing tasks to complete.
It is noted by Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, and Philip Zimbardo, of Stanford University, that none of the participants that were given the role of guards in the experiment showed any signs of sadistic behaviour prior to the study, as it was part of their control variables to ensure they had no previous sadistic tendencies. This goes to prove that it was the environmental factors that were greatly responsible for their brutal behaviour towards prisoners. In an interview conducted with the participants after the experiment was called off, one of the guards said, “I was surprised with myself. I made them call each other names and clean toilets with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle and I kept thinking I had to watch out for them in case they tried something.” Another said, “Acting authoritatively can be fun. Power can be a great pleasure.” (Zimbardo, 2007) The guards themselves were shocked at their own behaviour looking back at it showing that their actions were out of character and driven by the authority given to them and the power in their environment. Deindividuation is the state in which you, “become so immersed in the norms of the group that you lose your sense of identity and personal responsibility.” (McLeod 2007) this may explain the guards’ behaviour, they had become so immersed in the experiment and the power they could assert over others that they lost their sense of responsibilities or morals as individuals.
Milgram argued that people are socialized to respect authoritative figures. Milgram’s work was based on his belief that, “in the face of authority people lose sight of their own moral values and cannot help but obey orders.” (Linehan, 2017) There are many explanations to the obedience observed in his study, including the Agentic theory. The theory states that people are more likely to obey a command given to them by a person of authority if they can be assured that they instructor is of legitimate power or status and will be responsible for the consequences of the actions.