Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo 's Stanford Prison Experiment

Aim:
To test whether a person is predisposed to certain behaviour or whether the situation they find themselves in can affect their actions.

Method:
Zimbardo adapted the basement of Stanford University into a fake but realistic prison, to replicate the psychological experience of imprisonment and deindividuation. Recruiting 25 emotionally stable, healthy, lawful, paid volunteers who were randomly assigned the role of prisoner or guard expected to then act out their roles in a prison setting With no warning those ‘prisoners’ were arrested at their homes by real police and taken to be charged. Once booked and fingerprinted they were blindfolded and interned in the ‘fake’ prison. They were stripped,

The experiment was rigged to assign the roles of teacher and learner, the learner always a confederate. The experimenter always wore a grey lab coat to indicate his authority. The teacher had to ask the learner a series of questions, for an incorrect answer they were to administer an electric shock, increasing in voltage each time. They were shown the generator that was clearly marked from slight shock to severe shock.
The teacher and experimenter moved to an adjacent room so that the learner could not be seen only heard. As the experiment commenced the incorrect answers increased and therefore the shock levels rose. As the teacher became visibly uncomfortable and started to question the learners discomfort, due to the cries they could hear through the wall and then silence at 350v, the experimenter gave a series of prompts to push them to comply (Milgram, 1963).

Outcome:
The obedience rate was higher than the pre prediction that few would go beyond a 150v shock and that only four percent would reach 300v. The results were counterintuitive going against what was thought to be the likely

The findings cannot be generalised outside the laboratory as it is not in a natural setting.

Hofling Hospital Experiment

Aim:
To examine the extent of obedience in the nurse/doctor relationship.

Method:
The study set on a real hospital ward involved 22 night nurses who were not made aware of the experiment. An unknown doctor Dr Smith (a stooge) called the ward on 22 separate occasions speaking to the attending nurse, who was alone on the ward, asking if the drug astroten was available. On checking the nurse would have seen the maximum dosage allowable was 10 mg and that the drug was unauthorised and not on the stock list. Dr Smith acts in a hurried manner and asks the nurse to administer 20mg, double the maximum dose, and confirms that he will sign the written authorisation later (Hofling et al., 1966).

Outcome:
21 out of the 22 nurses complied with the request which broke three hospital procedures:
Accepting instructions over the phone.
The dosage was over the maximum stated on the label.
It was an unauthorised drug (in reality it was a placebo).
Some of the nurses lost their jobs following the results of the