View the step-by-step solution to:

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1963, Vol. 67, No. 4, 371-378 BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE1 STANLEY MILGRAM 2 Yale University This article...

To prepare for this assignment, locate scholarly articles on Milgram's studies on obedience to authority and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles. You may use the articles from the Unit 6 readings (attached); however, you must also use at least two resources that are not a part of this course. These two pivotal studies provide the basis for this assignment.

After completing your research, examine the controversy related to research and ethics in the field of social psychology. Consider the information you located on Milgram's studies on obedience to authority and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment on the power of social roles. Write a paper in which you address the following:

Describe what these studies revealed about conformity and obedience to authority.

Explain the benefits from these research studies. What knowledge or insight was gained?

Describe the impact of the studies in terms of the effects on the human participants.

Explain how these (and other) controversial research studies have shaped the principles and standards in the current APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Ethics.

Develop evidence-based arguments both for and against these types of controversial research studies.

Determine whether the information that was obtained in the studies was worth the risks to the human subjects. Explain and support your position.

Assignment requirements:

Your submitted assignment should be 4–5 pages in length, excluding title page and reference page

Use references from at least three scholarly resources.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1963, Vol. 67, No. 4, 371-378 BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE 1 STANLEY MILGRAM 2 Yale University This article describes a procedure for the study of destructive obedience in the laboratory. It consists of ordering a naive S to administer increasingly more severe punishment to a victim in the context of a learning experiment. Punishment is administered by means of a shock generator with 30 graded switches ranging from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The victim is a confederate of the E. The primary dependent variable is the maximum shock the S is willing to administer before he refuses to continue further. 26 Ss obeyed the experimental commands fully, and administered the highest shock on the generator. 14 Ss broke off the experiment at some point after the victim protested and refused to provide further answers. The procedure created extreme levels of nervous tension in some Ss. Profuse sweating, trembling, and stuttering were typical expressions of this emotional disturbance. One un- expected sign of tension—yet to be explained—was the regular occurrence of nervous laughter, which in some Ss developed into uncontrollable seizures. The variety of interesting behavioral dynamics observed in the experiment, the reality of the situation for the S, and the possibility of parametric varia- tion within the framework of the procedure, point to the fruitfulness of further study. Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the man dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, through defiance or submission, to the commands of others. Obedience, as a determinant of behavior, is of particular relevance to our time. It has been reliably established that from 1933-45 millions of innocent persons were systematically slaugh- tered on command. Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded, daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same ef- ficiency as the manufacture of appliances. These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed orders. Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political pur- pose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest 1 This research was supported by a grant (NSF G-17916) from the National Science Foundation. Exploratory studies conducted in 1960 were sup- ported by a grant from the Higgins Fund at Yale University. The research assistance of Alan C. Elms and Jon Wayland is gratefully acknowledged. 2 Now at Harvard University. that for many persons obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. C. P. Snow (1961) points to its importance when he writes: When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. If you doubt that, read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." The German Officer Corps were brought up in the most rigorous code of obedience ... in the name of obedience they were party to, and assisted in, the most wicked large scale actions in the history of the world [p. 24]. While the particular form of obedience dealt with in the present study has its ante- cedents in these episodes, it must not be thought all obedience entails acts of aggres- sion against others. Obedience serves numer- ous productive functions. Indeed, the very life of society is predicated on its existence. Obedience may be ennobling and educative and refer to acts of charity and kindness, as well as to destruction. General Procedure A procedure was devised which seems useful as a tool for studying obedience (Milgram, 1961). It consists of ordering 371
Background image of page 1
372 STANLEY MILGRAM a naive subject to administer electric shock to a victim. A simulated shock generator is used, with 30 clearly marked voltage levels that range from IS to 450 volts. The instru- ment bears verbal designations that range from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The responses of the victim, who is a trained confederate of the experimenter, are stand- ardized. The orders to administer shocks are given to the naive subject in the context of a "learning experiment" ostensibly set up to study the effects of punishment on memory. As the experiment proceeds the naive subject is commanded to administer increasingly more intense shocks to the victim, even to the point of reaching the level marked Danger: Severe Shock. Internal resistances become stronger, and at a certain point the subject refuses to go on with the experi- ment. Behavior prior to this rupture is con- sidered "obedience," in that the subject com- plies with the commands of the experimenter. The point of rupture is the act of disobedi- ence. A quantitative value is assigned to the subject's performance based on the maximum intensity shock he is willing to administer before he refuses to participate further. Thus for any particular subject and for any par- ticular experimental condition the degree of obedience may be specified with a numerical value. The crux of the study is to systemati- cally vary the factors believed to alter the degree of obedience to the experimental commands. The technique allows important variables to be manipulated at several points in the experiment. One may vary aspects of the source of command, content and form of com- mand, instrumentalities for its execution, target object, general social setting, etc. The problem, therefore, is not one of designing in- creasingly more numerous experimental con- ditions, but of selecting those that best illumi- nate the process of obedience from the socio- psychological standpoint. Related Studies The inquiry bears an important relation to philosophic analyses of obedience and author- ity (Arendt, 1958; Friedrich, 1958; Weber, 1947), an early experimental study of obedience by Frank (1944), studies in "au- thoritarianism" (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Rokeach, 1961), and a recent series of analytic and empirical studies in social power (Cartwright, 1959). It owes much to the long concern with suggestion in social psychology, both in its normal forms (e.g., Binet, 1900) and in its clinical manifestations (Charcot, 1881). But it derives, in the first instance, from direct observation of a social fact; the individual who is commanded by a legitimate authority ordinarily obeys. Obedience comes easily and often. It is a ubiquitous and indispensable feature of social life. METHOD Subjects The subjects were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, drawn from New Haven and the sur- rounding communities. Subjects were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicita- tion. Those who responded to the appeal believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. A wide range of occupations is represented in the sample. Typical subjects were postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers. Subjects ranged in educational level from one who had not finished elementary school, to those who had doctorate and other professional degrees. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment. However, sub- jects were told that payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, and that the money was theirs no matter what happened after they arrived. Table 1 shows the proportion of age and occupational types assigned to the experimental condition. Personnel and Locale The experiment was conducted on the grounds of Yale University in the elegant interaction laboratory. (This detail is relevant to the perceived legitimacy of the experiment. In further variations, the experi- TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF AGE AND OCCUPATIONAL TYPES IN THE EXPERIMENT Occupations Workers, skilled and unskilled Sales, business, and white-collar Professional Percentage of total (Age) 20-29 years 4 3 1 20 30-39 years 5 6 S 40 40-50 years 6 7 3 40 Percentage of total (Occupa- tions) 37.S 40.0 22.5 Note.—Total N = 40.
Background image of page 2
Show entire document
The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy Twenty-Five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment Craig Haney Philip Zimbardo University of California, Santa Cruz Stanford University In this article, the authors reflect on the lessons of their Stanford Prison Experiment, some 25 years after con- ducting it. They review the quarter century of change in criminal justice and correctional policies that has tran- spired since the Stanford Prison Experiment and then develop a series of reform-oriented proposals drawn from this and related studies on the power of social situa- tions and institutional settings that can be applied to the current crisis in American corrections. T wenty-five years ago, a group of psychologically healthy, normal college students (and several pre- sumably mentally sound experimenters) were tem- porarily but dramatically transformed in the course of six days spent in a prison-like environment, in research that came to be known as the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE; Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). The outcome of our study was shocking and unexpected to us, our professional colleagues, and the general public. Other- wise emotionally strong college students who were ran- domly assigned to be mock-prisoners suffered acute psy- chological trauma and breakdowns. Some of the students begged to be released from the intense pains of less than a week of merely simulated imprisonment, whereas others adapted by becoming blindly obedient to the unjust au- thority of the guards. The guards, too--who also had been carefully chosen on the basis of their normal-aver- age scores on a variety of personality measures--quickly internalized their randomly assigned role. Many of these seemingly gentle and caring young men, some of whom had described themselves as pacifists or Vietnam War "doves," soon began mistreating their peers and were indifferent to the obvious suffering that their actions pro- duced. Several of them devised sadistically inventive ways to harass and degrade the prisoners, and none of the less actively cruel mock-guards ever intervened or complained about the abuses they witnessed. Most of the worst prisoner treatment came on the night shifts and other occasions when the guards thought they could avoid the surveillance and interference of the research team. Our planned two-week experiment had to be aborted after only six days because the experience dramatically and painfully transformed most of the participants in ways we did not anticipate, prepare for, or predict. These shocking results attracted an enormous amount of public and media attention and became the focus of much academic writing and commentary. For example, in addition to our own analyses of the outcome of the study itself (e.g., Haney et al., 1973; Haney & Zimbardo, 1977; Zimbardo, 1975; Zimbardo, Haney, Banks, & Jaffe, 1974) and the various methodological and ethical issues that it raised (e.g., Haney, 1976; Zim- bardo, 1973), the SPE was hailed by former American Psychological Association president George Miller (1980) as an exemplar of the way in which psychological research could and should be "given away" to the public because its important lessons could be readily understood and appreciated by nonprofessionals. On the 25th anni- versary of this study, we reflect on its continuing message for contemporary prison policy in light of the quarter century of criminal justice history that has transpired since we concluded the experiment. When we conceived of the SPE, the discipline of psychology was in the midst of what has been called a "situational revolution." Our study was one of the "host of celebrated laboratory and field studies" that Ross and Nisbett (1991) referred to as having demonstrated the ways in which "the immediate social situation can over- whelm in importance the type of individual differences in personal traits or dispositions that people normally think of as being determinative of social behavior" (p. xiv). Along with much other research conducted over the past two and one-half decades illustrating the enormous power of situations, the SPE is often cited in textbooks and journal articles as a demonstration of the way in Editor's note. Melissa G. Warren served as action editor for this article. Author's note. Craig Haney, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz; Philip Zimbardo, Department of Psychology, Stanford University. We would like to acknowledge our colleague and coinvestigator in the original Stanford Prison Experiment, W. Curtis Banks, who died last year. We also acknowledge the assistance of Marc Mauer and The Sentencing Project, who granted permission to reprint Figure A1 and helped us locate other sources of information, and Sandy Pisano, librar- ian at the Arthur W. Melton Library, who helped compile some of the data that appear in the tables and figures. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Craig Haney, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected] Readers interested in the corrections system may contact the American Psychology-Law Society or Psychologists in Public Service, Divisions 41 and 18, respectively, of the American Psychological Association. July 1998 American Psychologist Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/98/$2.00 Vol. 53, No. 7, 709 727 709
Background image of page 01
Craig Haney which social contexts can influence, alter, shape, and transform human behavior. Our goal in conducting the SPE was to extend that basic perspective--one emphasizing the potency of so- cial situations--into a relatively unexplored area of so- cial psychology. Specifically, our study represented an experimental demonstration of the extraordinary power of institutional environments to influence those who passed through them. In contrast to the companion re- search of Stanley Milgram (1974) that focused on indi- vidual compliance in the face of an authority figure's increasingly extreme and unjust demands, the SPE exam- ined the conformity pressures brought to bear on groups of people functioning within the same institutional setting (see Carr, 1995). Our "institution" rapidly developed sufficient power to bend and twist human behavior in ways that confounded expert predictions and violated the expectations of those who created and participated in it. And, because the unique design of the study allowed us to minimize the role of personality or dispositional variables, the SPE yielded especially clear psychological insights about the nature and dynamics of social and institutional control. The behavior of prisoners and guards in our simu- lated environment bore a remarkable similarity to pat- terns found in actual prisons. As we wrote, "Despite the fact that guards and prisoners were essentially free to engage in any form of interaction. ., the characteristic nature of their encounters tended to be negative, hostile, affrontive and dehumanising" (Haney et al., 1973, p. 80). Specifically, verbal interactions were pervaded by threats, insults, and deindividuating references that were most commonly directed by guards against prisoners. The en- vironment we had fashioned in the basement hallway of Stanford University's Department of Psychology became so real for the participants that it completely dominated their day-to-day existence (e.g., 90% of prisoners' in- cell conversations focused on "prison"-related topics), dramatically affected their moods and emotional states (e.g., prisoners expressed three times as much negative affect as did guards), and at least temporarily undermined their sense of self (e.g., both groups expressed increas- ingly more deprecating self-evaluations over time). Be- haviorally, guards most often gave commands and en- gaged in confrontive or aggressive acts toward prisoners, whereas the prisoners initiated increasingly less behavior; failed to support each other more often than not; nega- tively evaluated each other in ways that were consistent with the guards' views of them; and as the experiment progressed, more frequently expressed intentions to do harm to others (even as they became increasingly more docile and conforming to the whims of the guards). We concluded, The negative, anti-social reactions observed were not the prod- uct of an environment created by combining a collection of deviant personalities, but rather the result of an intrinsically pathological situation which could distort and rechannel the behaviour of essentially normal individuals. The abnormality here resided in the psychological nature of the situation and not in those who passed through it. (Haney et al., 1973, p. 90) In much of the research and writing we have done since then, the SPE has served as an inspiration and intellectual platform from which to extend the conceptual relevance of situational variables into two very different domains. One of us examined the coercive power of legal institutions in general and prisons in particular (e.g., Ha- ney, 1993a, 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, 1998; Haney & Lynch, 1997), as well as the importance of situational factors in explaining and reducing crime (e.g., Haney, 1983, 1994, 1995, 1997a). The other of us explored the dimensions of intrapsychic "psychological prisons" that constrict human experience and undermine human potential (e.g., Brodt & Zimbardo, 1981; Zimbardo, 1977; Zimbardo, Pilkonis, & Norwood, 1975) and the ways in which "mind-altering" social psychological dynamics can dis- tort individual judgment and negatively influence behav- ior (e.g., Zimbardo, 1979a; Zimbardo & Andersen, 1993). Because the SPE was intended as a critical demonstration of the neg~itive effects of extreme institutional environ- ments, much of the work that grew out of this original study was change-oriented and explored the ways in which social and legal institutions and practices might be transformed to make them more responsive to humane psychological imperatives (e.g., Haney, 1993b; Haney & Pettigrew, 1986; Haney & Zimbardo, 1977; Zimbardo, 1975; Zimbardo et al., 1974). In this article, we return to the core issue that guided the original study (Haney et al., 1973)--the implications of situational models of behavior for criminal justice institutions. We use the SPE as a point of historical depar- ture to briefly examine the ways in which policies con- cerning crime and punishment have been transformed over the intervening 25 years. We argue that a series of 710 July 1998 • American Psychologist
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Comment Graduate Training in Philosophical Psychology I was instructed by the Executive Committee of Division 24 to bring to the attention of the larger psy- chological community the results of a survey on graduate training in philosophical psychology sponsored by the Division. The results of the survey follow. I think the findings speak for themselves and I shall let each of you draw your own conclu- sions. 1. Total number of schools written to = 305. 2. Total number of schools respond- ing = 160. 3. Sources of information: Anonymous written note 30 Note by chairman 67 Bulletin (brochure, flyer) 37 Personal letter 26 Total 160 4. Is there a specialty offered in philosophical psychology ? Yes = 5 No = 155 5. If Yes, then what is the nature and extent of it ? (a) Georgia State University, Atlanta: Foundations of Psychology Program still in formative stages. (6) Union Graduate School, Antioch College: Union Graduate School designs the program for each student to fit his background, needs, and goals. A few do major in philosophical psychol- ogy; all are PhD candidates. (c) University of Ottawa, Canada: Specialty in philosophical psychology is open to any PhD candidate who should elect it. There are psychology profes- sors competent in this area to guide the candidate in his academic work. (d) Duquesne University: Existen- tial-phenomenological philosophical ap- proach is applied to numerous psycho- logical problems at both the MA and PhD levels. (e) Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Psychology, University of Alberta, Canada: The Center is a doctoral and postdoctoral research or- ganization devoted to the clarification of conceptual problems in psychology and investigation of the field's theoreti- cal-philosophical presuppositions. 6. If No, then is there an emphasis on theoretical psychology? No information 48 No 63 Some 2 Slight 9 Average 5 More than average 2 Strong 4 Varies with professor 2 Only in standard courses 10 Only as related to research data or content areas 10 Total 155 AMEDEO P. GIOROI Duquesne University On "Obedience to Authority" Obedience is not to be understood solely by reference to the individual's conforming deed; that is merely the end product of a long process of prior programming by which the ra- tionality of power, dominance, and authority become impressed upon us. We are controlled not by the physical strength of adversaries but by the symbols, rules, and words manipu- lated by those of our own kind. The technology of behavior control begins with the subtle family processes in- volved in "civilizing" infants to be "good," "acceptable" children. The major lesson taught in all traditional school systems is the necessity to obey trivial, irrelevant rules and to observe protocol, while at all times respecting authority because it exists. Such control is perfected by a variety of social institutions that encourage adults to exchange freedom of thought, independence, and individu- ality for the delusions of social and economic security, collective political strength, and personal approval. I believe that the three major themes of Milgram's research (for review, see Milgram, 1974) and of our companion research on simulated prisons (New York Times Magazine, April 8, 1973) are (a) that obedience to authority requires each of us to first participate in the myth-making process of creat- ing authority figures who then must legitimize their authority through the evidence of our submission and obedience to them; (b) that the reason we can be manipulated so readily is precisely because we maintain an illusion of personal invulnerability and personal control, all the time being insensitive to the power of social forces and "discriminable" stimuli within the situation, which are in fact the potent determinants of action; and (c) that evil deeds are rarely the product of evil people acting from evil motives, but are the product of good bureaucrats simply doing their job. Rather than misfocusing attention on the ethics of Milgram's research, the dramatic aspects of the subjects' conflicts, or the ingeniousness of the experimental contrivances, we should focus on the very different concerns that are engendered by a meaningful reflection on obedience to authority. We must first increase our sensitivity to, and our need for, more knowledge about those conditions in our every- day life where, despite our protest— "/ would never do what they did"— we would, and we do, behave con- trary to our expectations. Second, we must critically reexamine the ethics and tactics of our .revered social institutions, which lay the foundation for our mindless obedi- ence to rules, to expectations, and to people playing at being authorities. The question to ask of Milgram's research is not why did the majority of normal, average subjects behave in evil (felonious) ways, but what did the disobeying minority do after they refused to continue to shock the poor soul, who was so obviously in 566 • JULY 1974 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
Background image of page 1
pain? Did they intervene, go to his aid, denounce the researcher, protest to higher authorities, etc.? No, even their disobedience was within the framework of "acceptability"; they stayed in their seats, "in their as- signed place," politely, psychologi- cally demurred, and they waited to be dismissed by the authority. Using other measures of obedience in addi- tion to "going all the way" on the shock generator, obedience to author- ity in Milgram's research was total! Such an experimental result is more than merely "probably impor- tant" (as Steven Marcus's review in the New York Times, January 13, 1974, suggests). It ought to give each of us pause as no other single bit of research has. But it will not, because the vital lessons about hu- man conduct are really not influenced by research psychologists or heeded even when nicely expressed by Eng- lish professors. The lessons reach the people through their momma and poppa, the homeroom teacher, the police, the priests, the politicians, the Ann Landers and Joyce Brothers, and all of the other "real" people of the world who set the rules and the consequences for breaking them. REFERENCES Marcus, S. Review of Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York Times, January 13, 1974, Section 7, pp. 1-3. Milgram, S. Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Zimbardo, P. G., Banks, W. C., Haney, C., & Jaffe, D. The mind is a for- midable jailer: A Pirandellian prison. New York Times Magazine, April 8, 1973, pp. 38-60. PHILIP G. ZIMBARDO Stanford University Reinterpreting Sarason's Blackishness Psychological science could benefit significantly from further examina- tions of nature and nurture issues as presented by Sarason (November 1973). The long-range payoff in societal amelioration and true human development would be evident. On the other hand, behavioral scientists who promote quasi-scrutinous evalu- ations of the confounding matrix of "nurture" variables also could be handicapped by Sarason's insistence on using a comparative model: black- ishness versus Jewishness. As a black psychologist who has devoted much thought to racial-ethnic psychody- namics, I find such ethnic parallelism highly inappropriate and objection- able. It becomes increasingly obvi- ous to me that until the real dimen- sions of nurture as explicated from differential intraethnic perspectives are fully explored, the real danger exists not in the metatheories of ad- vocates promoting genetic inferiority (of blacks) but in the environment- nurture camp whose perspective is weak, faulty, and misguided. First, to counter Sarason's notions let me present a series of arguments that should expose the fallacy of a comparative analysis between the black and the Jewish experiences: 1. While a fairly large number of Jews seem to have inculcated "a re- spect for book learning," it would be fallacious and deceptive to assign this proclivity to the overwhelming majority of Jewish persons. The broad-based Jewish scholarship in many fields is frequently used as the empirical yardstick of Jewish achieve- ment, yet quantitatively this phe- nomenon represents neither innate superiority nor a unique "nurturance for scholarship" factor. A constella- tion of various political, economic, and religious considerations has con- tributed significantly to Jewish ad- vancement. At present, no other minority group has had the oppor- tunity to even approach this level of accomplishment in America. 2. Sarason stated that "blackish- ness has not had at its core un- bounded respect for book learning and the acquisition of academically soaked, cognitive skills [p. 968]." Such a notion typifies a weak diag- nosis of social phenomena. Actually, the real issue here is that historically, American institutions have deliber- ately and consistently engaged in denying and excluding black people from educational achievement. The fact that large numbers of blacks have still managed to endure and achieve represents human accomplish- ment that has few parallels. 3. The attitudinal core of black- ishness, for example, toward educa- tion, does not require a modicum of change as Sarason suggested. The real change is needed fundamentally in America's social, political, and edu- cational institutions and in those individuals who have promoted op- pression. 4. Although Sarason is correct in asserting that societal amelioration must occur within a context of a time perspective, his allegiance to time has potentially dangerous politi- cal implications. Our policymakers could very well interpret such a per- spective as indicative of the need to minimize, or even discontinue, such programs as Head Start with such rationales as "it's too early to know if the program has really worked" or "the small IQ gains don't justify the cost benefit factors." 5. Sarason seriously failed to com- prehend the black experience when he asserted that both Jews and blacks believe that "this is a hostile world." In my opinion, many blacks today have not reached this important level of consciousness, but the number is increasing steadily. In fact, I have often advocated that young black children should encounter direct so- cialization experiences through which they can understand white society, and not their own, as the cause of interethnic difficulties. To many, such enculturation smacks of promoting racial hatred and bigotry as inevitable consequences, but, from my perspec- tive, such developmental experiences would contribute significantly to the future of black mental health. Sarason's autobiographical account was seemingly written for the pur- pose of capturing a typical Jewish developmental experience. In a simi- lar vein, my own black autobiography should be equally enlightening, al- AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • JULY 1974 • 567
Background image of page 2
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

View the full answer
obedience to authority.docx

Running Head: MILGRAM’S AND ZIMBARDO’S STUDIES ON CONFORMITY AND OBEDIENCE TO
AUTHORITY1 Milgram’s And Zimbardo’s Studies On Conformity And Obedience To Authority
Name
Instructor
Course...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online