Baumrind and Zimbardo Demonstrate that People their Behavior Change Depending on Outside Forces

Human behaviorist’s have long studied changes in people’s behavior as it relates to obedience in authoritative relationships. Two of the most renowned obedience studies were conducted by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo, in which they each tested reactions to authority using important variables that were manipulated throughout their experiments. However, some psychologists, like Dina Baumrind, a psychologist for the Institute of Human Development, believe experiments that test humans impetuous reactions should not be conducted unless the subject is well-informed of the purpose. Baumrinds, “Review of Stanley Milgrams Experiments on Obedience” criticizes the accuracy of Milgrams study and further explores the emotional response those submitted to testing inadvertently experience. While other psychologists, like Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University, believe even experimentation with known factors can produce the same psychological effect, as seen in Milgrams experiment. As Zimbardo notes in “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, even the voluntary role-playing of his study on obedience had a large impact on the subject’s mental-health, proving that Baumrind remains bias with her argument. While both Baumrind and Zimbardo care for the well-being of the subject during and after the experiment, Baumrind argues that all research, like Milgrams, must be conducted with consent of the subject, whereas Zimbardo views all types of experiments are crucial for developing human insight toward obedience to authority.

In her article, Baumrind opens focusing her argument around the environment in which Milgrams experiment takes place, while Zimbardo creates the atmosphere for his experiment as part of his research. Baumrind argues that Milgrams l...

... middle of paper ...

...nt appears less traumatic than Milgrams. The guards and prisoners both agree to have learned something from their experience and even have learned about themselves. They consider, “we might react more morally in future real-life analogues of this situation” (252). Zimbardo leaves his subjects with new knowledge and determination to keep themselves from imprisonment in their normal life.

Both the critical review Baumrind gives on Milgrams experiment and Zimbardos overview of his prison experiment illustrate the effects authority has on humans and the outcomes the experiments had on testing the subjects psyche. The psychological aspects of both experiments play a significant role in the results both researchers found. In fact, Baumrind and Zimbardo demonstrate that, when conscious of their actions, people are subject to change depending on outside forces.