both the Stanford prison experiment, and the Milgram experiments are a lot less black and white than pop psychology would have us believe. Reading the papers available online was interesting.
I think an important lesson from both Milgram experiment and to a lesser extent from the Zimbardo experiment is the fact, that at least some people truly believed that they were causing pain, that they ought not to continue but the experimenter managed to convince them to continue. The key lesson is that there's has a spectrum of how any given person will go along that route when they think they are in total control and freedom to do as they please as opposed to a situation where they think they are being pressured to go along with someone else's rules. In a real life example of authoritarian violence the organizers will place people into roles where they are able to function. You don't try to make a devout pacifist pull the trigger - you will find someone else for that role.
Actually, some did stop amd Milgram's original work is not an experiment - there was no control group and no manipulation of variables - but a demonstration
I love social Psychology as a topic, and I love your videos. However, as others have mentioned, it is irresponsible to bring up the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram experiment without mentioning the fact that they are widely viewed as invalid. In both examples, the experimenters were found years later to be manipulating the results. On top of that, the conclusions typically drawn from these experiments is far too general given what they were testing. That isn't to say that the situation can influence us to change our behaviors, but you need to be more thorough with the research you present, and to be careful to present this research with a healthy dose of skepticism.
@@lizicadumitru9683 Ok. But I don't know of any psychologists that claim that--recent textbooks (intro and social psych) don't mention that (they still present Milgram as accurate). And they do mention the problems with the Stanford Prison experiment. The only crit of Milgram I know of is along the "ethics" lines. As in: some think tricking the participants the way he did was unethical.
@@matthewramsey4960 That commenter highly caffeinated squirrel, I believe their handle was here on TH-cam mentioned that nearly 2/3 of the participants in Milgram's experiment were defiant against the authority making them cause electric shock harm to the others. This, if true, shows that majority of people will not kowtow to authority just because. I'm a big fan of professor Dave's content and his science and research is quite good but this this has been a bit of a dark spot on his research 😔
Yes, previously unpublished recordings of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the study, and interviews with his participants, offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel. It also shows that the experiment’s most memorable moment - of a prisoner descending into a screaming fit, proclaiming, “I’m burning up inside!” - was the result of the prisoner acting. “I took it as a kind of an improv exercise,” one of the guards told reporter Ben Blum. “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do.” The results weren't published in a reputable peer-reviewed psychology journal but rather the obscure journal Naval Research Reviews. Given that respected, mainstream journals tend to have rigorous publication standards, "apparently, peer review did its job [in this case]," David Amodio, an associate professor of psychology and neural science social at New York Univeristy, wrote on Twitter. In addition, other researchers failed to replicate Zimbardo's results, One guards told Blum he pretended to be a sadist for kicks.There’s even more evidence that the “guards” knew the results that Zimbardo wanted to produce, and were trained to meet his goals. It also provides evidence that the conclusions of the experiment were predetermined Moreover, some of the outbursts from the so-called prisoners weren't triggered by the trauma of prison, Blum found. One student prisoner, Douglas Korpi, told Blum that he faked a breakdown so that he could get out of the experiment early to study for a graduate school exam. [
You need to go research how scientific experimentation works. The researchers cannot interfere, the researchers does not get to influence the experiment. None of what was "learned" is in any way. Nevermind the complete lack of a control group. To think this experiment showed anything at all is at best idiotic and at worst ignorant.
Love your content. Unfortunately, the Zimbardo experiment isn't without it's flaws. More has come out since then and in fact found Zimbardo to be persuading the "guards" to be more mean spirited towards the "prisoners". Further research into this may be helpful to you.
See Rutger Bregman: Most people deep down are pretty decent. Without strong outside manipulations the guards in the prison experiment wouldn't have done much to write home about... Also Milgrams experiment appears deeply flawed.
Did I hear somewhere that the Stanford experiment wasn't exactly the most scientifically robust thing that has happened? Like, some of the participants had prior relationships and therefore might have been a little gung-ho about administering the brutality
The guards were also coached. If anything it just reaffirms the obedience to authority. It's a garbage example of situational attribution and a garbage experiment in general.
it just became a thing, it was a disaster nothing was learned, mostly everything pre-orchestrated, similar studies/experiments that proceeded it [under similar conditions] never xoncluded with almost same results as that of stanfords zimbardo is still alive vsauce did a good video on it
@@joqqeman no? I'm not sure what you're referring to as being part of the goal. If I remember correctly, the goal was to study loss of identity in the prisoners. But, now, basically all of the conclusions being drawn from it are about the behavior of the guards, which was never the intent of the experiment. It wasn't set up to control for any conclusions on that topic. The person running the experiment, Zimbardo, inserted himself into the experiment, compromising any objectivity... Basically, the whole thing is garbage and all attempts to replicate it have failed to show what Zimbardo claims it showed.
Thanks professor dave, i originally want to be a psychology major, but decided to self-study it instead, and this video really helps!! (Sorry for bad english, it's not my main language)
For the Zimbardo prison and Milgram experiments, how seriously should we take their results? How many times were they performed and on how many people? And how random were the subjects? Were they all from the same cultural background maybe? And how could we be sure that this is the usual human behavior if they somehow in a way or another knew that these were experiments?
Zimbardo's prison experiment was garbage and attempts to replicate it with better controls have never shown the same results. Milgram has been repeated many times with consistent results. I'd definitely take that one seriously.
@@allekatrase3751 But also for Milgram, doesn't everyone know that it's some sort of an experiment and that the expirementer knows what they're doing and probably just comply? Like why would they assume that they walked into a psychopath scientist lab hurting people for real? Maybe they concluded that it's fake
@@StdDev99 You can watch videos from the original experiment. That doesn't seem to have been the case. This has become more and more of a problem, but they do try to control for it.
That cultural aspect is part of the problem in social psychology - you can never be fully sure of testing something completely universal about humanity as such, because there are no social vacuums. However, that is not usually the goal either. In the original experiment the people were from a variety of backgrounds but from a small geographical area. It has been replicated but later replications have to get quite creative because of ethical constraints. You have to remember that this took place in the age when Eichmann was put on trial. There was discussion about what caused the Germans to act as they did and whether democratic peoples' would do the same? The idea was to show that given the right circumstances, decent well-meaning people can be coaxed into doing something that they themselves would otherwise consider immoral.
Ah, psychology! This should be fascinating and, I'm betting that before it's complete, will spark more than a few heated debates. 1.99M subs, Professor Dave! Almost there!
Hey I think it would be a good idea to make a disclaimer about the zimbardo prison experiment and how the guards were coached and the professor was the warden
It's also interesting to know that the second experiment was to look at Eichmann's defense during his trial in Israel, which was "I did what I was told because I wanted to get promoted."
I'm willing to believe that people have a sadistic streak that comes out in certain situations. Plus I've seen it with my own eyes, so good luck convincing me otherwise.
@@ompundir7539 our early evolution impacted millions of years after of evolution and continues to do so. Imagine if home sapient had not shared fire but instead shared a way to poison the well...this is not a poor analogy for the internet and today's society. We MUST promote vetted information and we must also dispell falsehoods od all types, we must get rid of the cornerstone for that falsehood though, which is religion. As long as we "teach" about this we will not make it.
An analysis of previously unpublished data raises serious questions about Stanley Milgram’s landmark obedience experiments. The findings, which have been published in Social Psychology Quarterly, indicate that many people were willing to engage in seemingly reprehensible behavior because they saw through the researchers’ cover story. Those who believed the cover story, on the other hand, tended to be more defiant. Subjects were led to believe that they were participating in a study about learning, and were asked to deliver increasingly powerful electric shocks to another subject whenever he got an answer wrong during a memory test. No shocks were actually delivered, but the other subject (who was actually a research assistant) made increasingly desperate cries of agony and pleas to stop. “I was surprised to discover an unpublished analysis in Stanley Milgram’s archives of the relationship between the amount of shock subjects gave in the experiment and their belief that the learner was really being hurt when I was researching my book ‘Behind the Shock Machine: the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments,'” explained study author Gina Perry, a science historian and an associate in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne. “I also came across feedback in the archives from Milgram’s subjects that detailed what kinds of things made them suspicious that the experiment was a hoax and their hunch that the learner was not really being hurt.” “I summarised the findings of the unpublished analysis in my book but my co-authors of this paper and I thought that we would look at the data in more detail and re-analyse it using more sophisticated statistical techniques to establish how subjects’ belief in or suspicions about the experiment affected their behavior,” Perry said. “So if someone was suspicious that the experiment was a hoax how did they react when it came to ‘shocking’ the learner? And how did those subjects who really believed the man was receiving painful shocks respond when they were told to continue to administer what they thought were painful shocks?” The researchers examined data from 656 post-experiment questionnaires, which asked the subjects to report how much they believed the learner was receiving painful shocks. Most of the subjects (56 percent) were defiant and at some point refused to continue administering the electric shocks. These subjects were also more likely to have believed that the learner was suffering. Those who were less successfully convinced that the learner was in pain, however, were more obedient. “Milgram publicly dismissed any suggestion that his subjects might have seen through the experimental deception and his work stresses his success in convincing his volunteers that the experiment was ‘real’ even though his unpublished research showed that this was not the case,” Perry told PsyPost. “While Milgram reported on the amount of shock that subjects were prepared to administer he suppressed data that gives us insights into why people behaved the way they did. Our study shows that the believability of the experimental scenario was highly variable, contrary to Milgram’s claims and that it affected subjects’ behavior. Some subjects were convinced the learner was receiving painful shocks, others were sceptical and suspicious.” “Our analysis shows that people who believed the learner was in pain were two and a half more times likely to defy the experimenter and refuse to give further shocks. We found that contrary to Milgram’s claims, the majority of subjects in the obedience experiments were defiant, and a significant reason for their refusal to continue was to spare the man pain,” Perry said. “This upends the traditional narrative about the obedience experiments as a demonstration of our slavish obedience to the orders of authorities and as an explanation for events such as the Holocaust. Our results shift the focus to the issue of defiance of authority, and empathy and altruism as the dominant reactions of subjects who volunteered for this research.” The new research builds upon findings from a previous study, which analyzed recordings of 91 conversations conducted immediately after the termination of the experiments. The recordings showed that most of the obedient subjects justified continuing the experiment because they believed the learner was not really being harmed. “The key findings of our study, that obedience to authority is not as unreasoning and automatic as Milgram would have us believe, but was based on commonsense judgements by subjects who were variously convinced and unconvinced by the experimental scenario and responded accordingly, should prompt textbook writers to significantly revise their presentations of the research,” Perry said. The study, “Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test“, was authored by Gina Perry, Augustine Brannigan, Richard A. Wanner, and Henderikus Stam.
SP includes individuals not in groups. And individuals that think independently in groups. Think outside of your education and see the real World interaction including yourself. Also observe and note how individuals and groups change over time.
Hey @Professor Dave Explains • The Prison Experiment was quite semi‐flawed, mate. Michael Stevens of VSauce did a Mind Field video on it. Incl. interviewing Zimbardo & a former "guard". Detrrminative language influenced the personality types who applied to even be IN a "prison" experiment.
hey during anchoring multiplication i stated my first answer and during the second multiplication i started to check for patterns in comparison to both the problems now does that mean i was anchoring to the math problem rather than solution or something else
Straying from science, I see. Still educational though! For all those interested- read Zimbardo’s book- “The Lucifer Effect.” For those not, just keep in mind that this is not what most actual scientists would consider “good” or “real” science.
The framing part looks incorrect. The left is presenting the treatment as partially effective. The right is presenting the treatment as potentially completely curative or a complete failure (ie odds of working or not working at all). That's not framing because the questions are actually different.
Sorry for the off-topic comment, I have some thoughts on communication. In your video on trans people you state the distinction between sex and gender as you give the state of the art explanation of the different aspects of sexual dimorphism. Since both body physiology and neurobiology are aspects of how that dimorphism is expressed, isn't it more clear to differentiate within the established term (e. g. to speak of neurological and physiological gender/sex) instead of insisting on a distinction that seems unintuitive and somewhat arbitrary? This alternative would even be kind of self-explanatory. It would be one point fewer about which the audience you try to educate could argue.
Please mate, I posted a few times, so love your work, your now my go-to guy on anything I need to know, so glad someone recommended your channel, but can I ask have you watched this vibe of the Cosmo's that all the FLerfs are now using as proof the moon is not solid, but infact a plasma ball, and it's surface is just a reflection of earths surface, can you have a look and maybe tell me what you think of it, as I can't make any sense of it at all? It would be great if you would do a video about this topic just to shut these people up. Sorry to hijack a post! Keep up the great work buddy.👍
Ok something is wrong with that Milgram experiment example. That’s not how I remember it. Or, I studied a different one but same set up. There were people that showed a moral consciousness. Some people had a heart and did not want to hurt the person getting shocked.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains yes, it was a dumb presumption on my part. Its just that, out of any scientific field psychology has the reputation of being "bogus". And since you make a sort of dudebro sceptic impression, I assumed you could share this view. All in all, I am glad it was a false assumption
As a huge nerd of and fan of your debunk stuff, and every science you've covered, as well as being a socio nerd, I just creamed my pants seeing this posted.
Of course , we as humans are animals. Some animals are clever than others. For example, these humans that just look out to see the easy prey. I guess I got a reason what I stay by myself alone, because when I find out some humans want to use me for granted. I back off completely. I am a loyal friend, but when I find out some punky as use me . I take revenge.
Dave, in regards to your debunk videos, you seem to spend a lot of time dealing with stupid trolls. I have a suggestion: how about you set channel guidelines so the trolls will have no excuse if they do not bring up their sources or something similar? It may reduce the amount of stress you deal with in those places.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains no, stupid stuff like saying we are animals is funny. But hey, you have the professer tittle in your name, so you know better right? You are a deceiver
WRONG ! .....A HUMAN IS NOT A SOCIAL ANIMAL.....A HUMAN HAS A SOUL AN ANIMAL HAS A SPIRIT..... DON'T BE CONFUSED BY SEEING A PERSON BEHAVING LIKE AN ANIMAL/INSTINCTS FOR A HUMAN.
The experiement where the teacher was getting more and more aggressive, did they test how religious the teachers were? Because in religious books we find this type of acts where "god" punishes you a lot to teach you lessons.. i think most of teachers were very religious and developed an instantaneous god complex as the experiment progressed..
What did we do to deserve Professor Dave? Takes all this time to research, script, and edit videos, just for the benefit of spreading knowledge to our society. 🥹
Social Psychology is one of my favorite Psychology branches, loving the series professor Dave.
both the Stanford prison experiment, and the Milgram experiments are a lot less black and white than pop psychology would have us believe. Reading the papers available online was interesting.
Check out milgram's book too!
I think an important lesson from both Milgram experiment and to a lesser extent from the Zimbardo experiment is the fact, that at least some people truly believed that they were causing pain, that they ought not to continue but the experimenter managed to convince them to continue. The key lesson is that there's has a spectrum of how any given person will go along that route when they think they are in total control and freedom to do as they please as opposed to a situation where they think they are being pressured to go along with someone else's rules.
In a real life example of authoritarian violence the organizers will place people into roles where they are able to function. You don't try to make a devout pacifist pull the trigger - you will find someone else for that role.
Actually, some did stop amd Milgram's original work is not an experiment - there was no control group and no manipulation of variables - but a demonstration
I love social Psychology as a topic, and I love your videos. However, as others have mentioned, it is irresponsible to bring up the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram experiment without mentioning the fact that they are widely viewed as invalid. In both examples, the experimenters were found years later to be manipulating the results. On top of that, the conclusions typically drawn from these experiments is far too general given what they were testing. That isn't to say that the situation can influence us to change our behaviors, but you need to be more thorough with the research you present, and to be careful to present this research with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Indeed. See also the book by Rutger Bregman: most people deep down arevpretty decent
Milgram manipulated results?
@@matthewramsey4960 According to one commenter here he didn't publish all results.
@@lizicadumitru9683 Ok. But I don't know of any psychologists that claim that--recent textbooks (intro and social psych) don't mention that (they still present Milgram as accurate). And they do mention the problems with the Stanford Prison experiment. The only crit of Milgram I know of is along the "ethics" lines. As in: some think tricking the participants the way he did was unethical.
@@matthewramsey4960 That commenter highly caffeinated squirrel, I believe their handle was here on TH-cam mentioned that nearly 2/3 of the participants in Milgram's experiment were defiant against the authority making them cause electric shock harm to the others. This, if true, shows that majority of people will not kowtow to authority just because.
I'm a big fan of professor Dave's content and his science and research is quite good but this this has been a bit of a dark spot on his research 😔
wasn't the prison experiment super flawed and the experimenter took part in the experiment and encouraged sadistic behavior?
Yes, previously unpublished recordings of Philip Zimbardo, the Stanford psychologist who ran the study, and interviews with his participants, offers convincing evidence that the guards in the experiment were coached to be cruel. It also shows that the experiment’s most memorable moment - of a prisoner descending into a screaming fit, proclaiming, “I’m burning up inside!” - was the result of the prisoner acting. “I took it as a kind of an improv exercise,” one of the guards told reporter Ben Blum. “I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do.”
The results weren't published in a reputable peer-reviewed psychology journal but rather the obscure journal Naval Research Reviews. Given that respected, mainstream journals tend to have rigorous publication standards, "apparently, peer review did its job [in this case]," David Amodio, an associate professor of psychology and neural science social at New York Univeristy, wrote on Twitter.
In addition, other researchers failed to replicate Zimbardo's results,
One guards told Blum he pretended to be a sadist for kicks.There’s even more evidence that the “guards” knew the results that Zimbardo wanted to produce, and were trained to meet his goals. It also provides evidence that the conclusions of the experiment were predetermined
Moreover, some of the outbursts from the so-called prisoners weren't triggered by the trauma of prison, Blum found. One student prisoner, Douglas Korpi, told Blum that he faked a breakdown so that he could get out of the experiment early to study for a graduate school exam. [
Ouch. Doesn't that invalidate any of the findings? Like your name Mr. Squirrel!
@@nc1609 and makes any and all of the information gleaned totally worthless
You need to go research how scientific experimentation works. The researchers cannot interfere, the researchers does not get to influence the experiment. None of what was "learned" is in any way. Nevermind the complete lack of a control group. To think this experiment showed anything at all is at best idiotic and at worst ignorant.
@@nc1609 you clearly know nothing of scientific experimentation or how the scientific method works. this conversation is over.
Ok, so this is going to be one of my favourite subjects on this channel. Looking forward to the rest of it!
Love your content. Unfortunately, the Zimbardo experiment isn't without it's flaws. More has come out since then and in fact found Zimbardo to be persuading the "guards" to be more mean spirited towards the "prisoners". Further research into this may be helpful to you.
Source please? Thanks!
Also this experiment has been repeated many times with broadly similar results.
came down to see if anyone else had heard that to. Can't remember where I heard that from but I'm gonna do some googling and see what I can find.
See Rutger Bregman: Most people deep down are pretty decent. Without strong outside manipulations the guards in the prison experiment wouldn't have done much to write home about... Also Milgrams experiment appears deeply flawed.
it's is a contraction of it is
Did I hear somewhere that the Stanford experiment wasn't exactly the most scientifically robust thing that has happened? Like, some of the participants had prior relationships and therefore might have been a little gung-ho about administering the brutality
The guards were also coached. If anything it just reaffirms the obedience to authority. It's a garbage example of situational attribution and a garbage experiment in general.
it just became a thing, it was a disaster
nothing was learned, mostly everything pre-orchestrated, similar studies/experiments that proceeded it [under similar conditions] never xoncluded with almost same results as that of stanfords
zimbardo is still alive
vsauce did a good video on it
@@allekatrase3751 well that was part of the goal though, wasn't it?
@@joqqeman no? I'm not sure what you're referring to as being part of the goal. If I remember correctly, the goal was to study loss of identity in the prisoners. But, now, basically all of the conclusions being drawn from it are about the behavior of the guards, which was never the intent of the experiment. It wasn't set up to control for any conclusions on that topic. The person running the experiment, Zimbardo, inserted himself into the experiment, compromising any objectivity...
Basically, the whole thing is garbage and all attempts to replicate it have failed to show what Zimbardo claims it showed.
@@allekatrase3751 THANK YOU!
This was very educational. I look forward to the next two parts.
Thanks professor dave, i originally want to be a psychology major, but decided to self-study it instead, and this video really helps!! (Sorry for bad english, it's not my main language)
I really enjoy these topics so thank you for making videos on it.
You're are the most awesome professor that I ever saw... You are rocking ...
I see you’ve hit the 2m mark prof, well deserved mate👍
For the Zimbardo prison and Milgram experiments, how seriously should we take their results? How many times were they performed and on how many people? And how random were the subjects? Were they all from the same cultural background maybe? And how could we be sure that this is the usual human behavior if they somehow in a way or another knew that these were experiments?
Zimbardo's prison experiment was garbage and attempts to replicate it with better controls have never shown the same results.
Milgram has been repeated many times with consistent results. I'd definitely take that one seriously.
@@allekatrase3751 But also for Milgram, doesn't everyone know that it's some sort of an experiment and that the expirementer knows what they're doing and probably just comply? Like why would they assume that they walked into a psychopath scientist lab hurting people for real? Maybe they concluded that it's fake
@@StdDev99 You can watch videos from the original experiment. That doesn't seem to have been the case. This has become more and more of a problem, but they do try to control for it.
That cultural aspect is part of the problem in social psychology - you can never be fully sure of testing something completely universal about humanity as such, because there are no social vacuums. However, that is not usually the goal either. In the original experiment the people were from a variety of backgrounds but from a small geographical area. It has been replicated but later replications have to get quite creative because of ethical constraints. You have to remember that this took place in the age when Eichmann was put on trial. There was discussion about what caused the Germans to act as they did and whether democratic peoples' would do the same? The idea was to show that given the right circumstances, decent well-meaning people can be coaxed into doing something that they themselves would otherwise consider immoral.
Loved the video, your art and infographics look so much better recently!
Ah, psychology! This should be fascinating and, I'm betting that before it's complete, will spark more than a few heated debates.
1.99M subs, Professor Dave! Almost there!
Love that face at the end of the intro!! 😁 Professor Dave apparently knows more than just science stuff 👍
Hey I think it would be a good idea to make a disclaimer about the zimbardo prison experiment and how the guards were coached and the professor was the warden
It's also interesting to know that the second experiment was to look at Eichmann's defense during his trial in Israel, which was "I did what I was told because I wanted to get promoted."
Excellent representation of the subject! Great work.
I'm willing to believe that people have a sadistic streak that comes out in certain situations.
Plus I've seen it with my own eyes, so good luck convincing me otherwise.
damn, the ideas are very applicable to the "amusing discussion" video
Dave as always with the amazing videos💘
I imagine an internet where channels like this are the majority and the population actually understands basic science.. one can dream :)
@@MrDmadness yes me tooo, so people stop believing in random false things on the internet.
@@ompundir7539 our early evolution impacted millions of years after of evolution and continues to do so. Imagine if home sapient had not shared fire but instead shared a way to poison the well...this is not a poor analogy for the internet and today's society. We MUST promote vetted information and we must also dispell falsehoods od all types, we must get rid of the cornerstone for that falsehood though, which is religion. As long as we "teach" about this we will not make it.
@@MrDmadness okay friend my English sucks I can't understand a single word you just said😂
@@ompundir7539 I understand. Nice to talk to you friend :)
An analysis of previously unpublished data raises serious questions about Stanley Milgram’s landmark obedience experiments.
The findings, which have been published in Social Psychology Quarterly, indicate that many people were willing to engage in seemingly reprehensible behavior because they saw through the researchers’ cover story. Those who believed the cover story, on the other hand, tended to be more defiant.
Subjects were led to believe that they were participating in a study about learning, and were asked to deliver increasingly powerful electric shocks to another subject whenever he got an answer wrong during a memory test.
No shocks were actually delivered, but the other subject (who was actually a research assistant) made increasingly desperate cries of agony and pleas to stop.
“I was surprised to discover an unpublished analysis in Stanley Milgram’s archives of the relationship between the amount of shock subjects gave in the experiment and their belief that the learner was really being hurt when I was researching my book ‘Behind the Shock Machine: the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments,'” explained study author Gina Perry, a science historian and an associate in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne.
“I also came across feedback in the archives from Milgram’s subjects that detailed what kinds of things made them suspicious that the experiment was a hoax and their hunch that the learner was not really being hurt.”
“I summarised the findings of the unpublished analysis in my book but my co-authors of this paper and I thought that we would look at the data in more detail and re-analyse it using more sophisticated statistical techniques to establish how subjects’ belief in or suspicions about the experiment affected their behavior,” Perry said.
“So if someone was suspicious that the experiment was a hoax how did they react when it came to ‘shocking’ the learner? And how did those subjects who really believed the man was receiving painful shocks respond when they were told to continue to administer what they thought were painful shocks?”
The researchers examined data from 656 post-experiment questionnaires, which asked the subjects to report how much they believed the learner was receiving painful shocks.
Most of the subjects (56 percent) were defiant and at some point refused to continue administering the electric shocks. These subjects were also more likely to have believed that the learner was suffering. Those who were less successfully convinced that the learner was in pain, however, were more obedient.
“Milgram publicly dismissed any suggestion that his subjects might have seen through the experimental deception and his work stresses his success in convincing his volunteers that the experiment was ‘real’ even though his unpublished research showed that this was not the case,” Perry told PsyPost.
“While Milgram reported on the amount of shock that subjects were prepared to administer he suppressed data that gives us insights into why people behaved the way they did. Our study shows that the believability of the experimental scenario was highly variable, contrary to Milgram’s claims and that it affected subjects’ behavior. Some subjects were convinced the learner was receiving painful shocks, others were sceptical and suspicious.”
“Our analysis shows that people who believed the learner was in pain were two and a half more times likely to defy the experimenter and refuse to give further shocks. We found that contrary to Milgram’s claims, the majority of subjects in the obedience experiments were defiant, and a significant reason for their refusal to continue was to spare the man pain,” Perry said.
“This upends the traditional narrative about the obedience experiments as a demonstration of our slavish obedience to the orders of authorities and as an explanation for events such as the Holocaust. Our results shift the focus to the issue of defiance of authority, and empathy and altruism as the dominant reactions of subjects who volunteered for this research.”
The new research builds upon findings from a previous study, which analyzed recordings of 91 conversations conducted immediately after the termination of the experiments. The recordings showed that most of the obedient subjects justified continuing the experiment because they believed the learner was not really being harmed.
“The key findings of our study, that obedience to authority is not as unreasoning and automatic as Milgram would have us believe, but was based on commonsense judgements by subjects who were variously convinced and unconvinced by the experimental scenario and responded accordingly, should prompt textbook writers to significantly revise their presentations of the research,” Perry said.
The study, “Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test“, was authored by Gina Perry, Augustine Brannigan, Richard A. Wanner, and Henderikus Stam.
SP includes individuals not in groups. And individuals that think independently in groups. Think outside of your education and see the real World interaction including yourself. Also observe and note how individuals and groups change over time.
wasn't the stanford prison experiment kinda discredited
Fascinating.
Wow, almost 2 million subscribers!
Thank you professor ❤
Wish you had made more emphasis on sociology and social morés and the effects of socialisation and group identity.
We have many abilities. Amazing.
Almost at 2 million Dave!
Hey @Professor Dave Explains • The Prison Experiment was quite semi‐flawed, mate. Michael Stevens of VSauce did a Mind Field video on it. Incl. interviewing Zimbardo & a former "guard". Detrrminative language influenced the personality types who applied to even be IN a "prison" experiment.
l love this video! l wanna be a psychologist l need more of your videos
hey during anchoring multiplication i stated my first answer and during the second multiplication i started to check for patterns in comparison to both the problems now does that mean i was anchoring to the math problem rather than solution or something else
Your vids keep getting better. Thanks a lot, man.
Under appreciated man
I heard the prison one is not a good study. You might want to double check your research on that one.
Straying from science, I see. Still educational though!
For all those interested- read Zimbardo’s book- “The Lucifer Effect.” For those not, just keep in mind that this is not what most actual scientists would consider “good” or “real” science.
14:30 the problem is that I saw they're the same before hand, my brain just mathed it all from the start
The framing part looks incorrect. The left is presenting the treatment as partially effective. The right is presenting the treatment as potentially completely curative or a complete failure (ie odds of working or not working at all). That's not framing because the questions are actually different.
Good stuff Dave!
In the Standford prison experiment, the guards were actually coached on how to act
Sorry for the off-topic comment, I have some thoughts on communication.
In your video on trans people you state the distinction between sex and gender as you give the state of the art explanation of the different aspects of sexual dimorphism.
Since both body physiology and neurobiology are aspects of how that dimorphism is expressed, isn't it more clear to differentiate within the established term (e. g. to speak of neurological and physiological gender/sex) instead of insisting on a distinction that seems unintuitive and somewhat arbitrary?
This alternative would even be kind of self-explanatory.
It would be one point fewer about which the audience you try to educate could argue.
Why my answer is opposite to your conclusion? The calculative example of anchoring
Please mate, I posted a few times, so love your work, your now my go-to guy on anything I need to know, so glad someone recommended your channel, but can I ask have you watched this vibe of the Cosmo's that all the FLerfs are now using as proof the moon is not solid, but infact a plasma ball, and it's surface is just a reflection of earths surface, can you have a look and maybe tell me what you think of it, as I can't make any sense of it at all? It would be great if you would do a video about this topic just to shut these people up. Sorry to hijack a post! Keep up the great work buddy.👍
It's not worth a video, it's just another dumb thing flerfs say. Anyone who has looked at the lunar surface in a telescope can see what the moon is.
kinda weird seeing that ”stanford experiment” in your video, due to no credibility in its results
Ok something is wrong with that Milgram experiment example. That’s not how I remember it. Or, I studied a different one but same set up. There were people that showed a moral consciousness. Some people had a heart and did not want to hurt the person getting shocked.
Nice another series
Nice!
👏🙂
Very interesting
You know, something about your vibe made me think you would literally deny the whole field of psyvhology
I am a science communicator. I'm pro-science.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains yes, it was a dumb presumption on my part. Its just that, out of any scientific field psychology has the reputation of being "bogus". And since you make a sort of dudebro sceptic impression, I assumed you could share this view. All in all, I am glad it was a false assumption
I hope one of the learners pretending to be shocked yelled out, "The effect? I'll tell you what the effect is. It's pissing me off!"
jeeezzzz the overt physical reaction i had to the gif of all those people staring and raising their camera phones😬
11:16 Luckily, I got exactly the correct answer without having to compute it, since I had already memorized factorials up to 9
I often get physiological arousal when I am on my own .. but I take myself in hand.
awww man. On the anchoring question I just said 8! haha
Great 👍👍
I wish more people could realize this stuff. it's disturbing. ☹️
plz make more video on psychology.as there is very less content regarding it
As a huge nerd of and fan of your debunk stuff, and every science you've covered, as well as being a socio nerd, I just creamed my pants seeing this posted.
You forgot thought and feelings, not just behavior.......🤔
1:00 this could be more aesthetic if the numbers were white
Of course , we as humans are animals. Some animals are clever than others. For example, these humans that just look out to see the easy prey. I guess I got a reason what I stay by myself alone, because when I find out some humans want to use me for granted. I back off completely. I am a loyal friend, but when I find out some punky as use me . I take revenge.
Reminds me of my job at UPS lol.
😮😂😂
I find it baffling that you brought up the Stanford Prison experiments without mentioning that the study has been thoroughly discredited.
How the heck have the comments not devolved into a cats vs dogs argument?! ... (BTW Dogs for the win :P)
Both are tasty
Dave, in regards to your debunk videos, you seem to spend a lot of time dealing with stupid trolls. I have a suggestion: how about you set channel guidelines so the trolls will have no excuse if they do not bring up their sources or something similar? It may reduce the amount of stress you deal with in those places.
Oh my goodness, you think trolls are going to follow guidelines? I find that very endearing.
Finally, I can learn all about 🤡 to 🤡 communication
The Milgram experiment sounds like something you'd see on Jack Ass ⚡
In reality it wasnt very dramatic most lot of what was going on from the guy getting shocked was just taped responses like "Ouch!".. 😁
@@joqqeman They could've at least thrown in a, "Oooh the HUMANITY!!!!" 🤣
Zimbardo was debunked
Is this sociology or psychology?
Someone is gonna answer with "yes" aren't they
@@calebr7199 :)
This is part of my psychology series.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains
ah thanks.
Depends which country you study in - sometimes a lot of what was discussed here is part of social sciences, sometimes psychology
this video gives me fucking anxiety, why is everybody going about their day-day lives living, asleep like this?
1.99M subscribers.why I type this?(I mean psychology behind that no.)😉😂
8 factorial is 8 factorial...
Yes, but framing.
+Professor Dave Explains No wonder they all botch up the sum. It should have been 8! and not 8? ;) :p
👏👍
Cats are better than dogs. Everyone says that, and they are all correct.
religious ppl should watch this and really try to understand these stuff,especially the"confirmation bias"thing which they do very well lol
Very condescending.
Um, what?
As a musician i play better alone
Noiceeee
Social animals 🤣🤣🤣
Random words are funny to you?
@@ProfessorDaveExplains no, stupid stuff like saying we are animals is funny. But hey, you have the professer tittle in your name, so you know better right?
You are a deceiver
Social mamals 😏
WRONG ! .....A HUMAN IS NOT A SOCIAL ANIMAL.....A HUMAN HAS A SOUL AN ANIMAL HAS A SPIRIT..... DON'T BE CONFUSED BY SEEING A PERSON BEHAVING LIKE AN ANIMAL/INSTINCTS FOR A HUMAN.
If humans aren't animals, what are they? Fungi?
@@rowanlavellan9755 people like this don’t have the logical faculties to understand.
@@rowanlavellan9755 They are plants, obviously. What are you talking about?
The experiement where the teacher was getting more and more aggressive, did they test how religious the teachers were? Because in religious books we find this type of acts where "god" punishes you a lot to teach you lessons.. i think most of teachers were very religious and developed an instantaneous god complex as the experiment progressed..
Remember kids armchair psychology 101 videos don't grant you a doctorate degree in comment section armchair psychology 😂
What did we do to deserve Professor Dave? Takes all this time to research, script, and edit videos, just for the benefit of spreading knowledge to our society. 🥹
A more educated society is a society better for everyone
We became flat earthers and refused smallpox vaccines. Lol
Thank you professor ❤
❤👍