Hi: There is an interesting chapter by Zimbardo in the following book about Milgram's Obedience studies.
Obedience to authority : current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm / edited by Thomas Blass. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000 (I don't have the book here and can't remember if this is where I read about the connection between his reesearch and the ethics code or not...) However, in this piece, he does look back at his role in the research, how he became so wrapped up in his role as warden, and how he was shaken by the comments of his fiancee (?) to put an end to the experiment. He did mention also, as he did in the piece on Court TV last night, that Milgram was very pleased that the Stanford Prison Experiment "took the heat" regarding ethics off of him. Interestingly, Zimbardo also mentions that he and Milgram knew each other from way back - they attended high school together. Kathy Kathy Stolley Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice Virginia Wesleyan College Norfolk, Virginia 23502 757-233-8768 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Robert Greene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: TEACHSOC: Re: Human Behavior Experiments Documentary >Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:24:10 -0500 > > >But didn't Zimbardo's research preclude the establishment of the APA's code >of ethics? I thought I read that somewhere. > > >>> Richard Butsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/02/06 11:14 AM >>> > >As sociologists, we should remember that Zimbardo's and Milgram's >experiments were done within a psychology paradigm. They were looking >for psycholgical explanations for these behavior. Milgram, for example >was building on the Authoritarian Personality literature (based on >Adorno's work with psychoanalytic roots). > >Moreover, the interpretations typically dramwn from these studies are >psychological, i.e. what kinds of personalities will do such things, and >the answer they give is just about anybody if given a chance or pushed >by authority figues to do so, but without developing any structural or >cultural explanations. The NY Times review for example cites the "herd >mentality" from century old crowd psychology, as the explanation why >research subjects did not resist. > >As such they require reinterpretation in a sociological framework. For >one example, not the herd mentality, but rather individuals noticing >that others are not acting, so that they would be deviant and therfore >vulnerable to retribution. The research create a normative situation. >The subject by agreeing to participate in the situation has also agree >to accept those temporary norms in an artificial situation >(artificiality giving them an excuse for why to not resist). Not >surprising to those who study collective behavior, there is no >resistance. What conditions that give rise to collective action are >present in these situations, that subjects might act to change norms? > >Richard Butsch >Professor of Sociology >Rider University > > > > > > > >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
