I'd say that the second probably also played a role. It seems entirely likely to me that the test subjects intuitively trusted the other participants to not take the experiment too far -- the inmates trusted the guards, and both trusted the people administering the test. Frankly, I'm not sure how to evaluate which of those three factors played the primary role.seeker wrote:So here are three different motives for acquiescing to the leadership of another: fear, trust, and the need for acceptance. Zimbardo's point seems to be that we do not adequately appreciate the power of the third (although the SPE also involved the first) to produce destructive behavior.
-
In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am
The Obedience Experiments (Chapter 12)
-
-
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- 19
- Location: decentralized
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"
- Mr. P
-
- Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
- 19
- Location: NJ
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Gender:
I did not pick up that the prisoners trusted the guards. After the first day there was a rebellion. Where did they trust the guards. Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation?MadArchitect wrote: I'd say that the second probably also played a role. It seems entirely likely to me that the test subjects intuitively trusted the other participants to not take the experiment too far -- the inmates trusted the guards, and both trusted the people administering the test. Frankly, I'm not sure how to evaluate which of those three factors played the primary role.
Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
-
-
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- 19
- Location: decentralized
- Mr. P
-
- Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
- 19
- Location: NJ
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Gender:
hmm...not sure about that. I can agree that all these guys probably went in with "it is only an experiment" attitude (which we see the prisoners exhibiting in the beginning) but to say that that type of trust contributed to the prisoners bowing to the guards authority does not seem to follow from what I have read.MadArchitect wrote:It was a volunteer experiment, right? I doubt many of them would have volunteered if they hadn't assumed beforehand that the situation would be at least marginally safe.misterpessimistic wrote:Or are you implying that their trust was inherent in the situation?
I tend to think it is more the fear factor...and plain old wear down tactics by the guards.
Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
-
-
- The Pope of Literature
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
- 19
- Location: decentralized
- Dissident Heart
-
- I dumpster dive for books!
- Posts: 1790
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
- 20
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 18 times
I think all three are operative. Leaders provide direction and meaning through immediate dictate or personal example. The leader's audience is seeking leadership out of a combination of fear and hope and a desire for acceptance: they are influenced when a leader increases hope, decreases fear, and provides a meaningful role for the follower in whatever the project may be...thus, they trust the leader and submit to her direction.seeker: So here are three different motives for acquiescing to the leadership of another: fear, trust, and the need for acceptance. Zimbardo's point seems to be that we do not adequately appreciate the power of the third (although the SPE also involved the first) to produce destructive behavior.
Leaders offer a narrative that brings an audience into something meaningful and hopeful: their leadership is a matter of creating an identity for an audience that creates solidarity around particular values that lead to prescribed actions.
The leader's narrative is suited to the task at hand: mobilizing a crew to unload a truck, motivating a political party to endorse a divisive platform, energizing a classroom of students to complete a difficult task, or getting a group of volunteers to participate in a provocative experiment.
Leaders will encourage sacrifice for the greater cause, often using themselves as personal examples, or by threat of punishment: the punishment can be dismissal from the team, stigma and peer pressure, or physical assault.
So what is the greater cause to which these volunteers are working towards?
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
- 18
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
As Mr. P says, trust wasn't much of factor once the experiment was underway. In fact, a strong mutual distrust emerged between the prisoners and the guards.misterpessimistic wrote:I can agree that all these guys probably went in with "it is only an experiment" attitude (which we see the prisoners exhibiting in the beginning) but to say that that type of trust contributed to the prisoners bowing to the guards authority does not seem to follow from what I have read.
I tend to think it is more the fear factor...and plain old wear down tactics by the guards.
While the prisoners did fear the guards, conformance to the social role of prisoner was also a major influence.
Besides, the guard's actions, and the reasons for their cruelty, were the most prominent aspect of the SPE.