[enkid]

Tangent, but the Stanford Prison Experiment is an awful example of science. It was a researcher who wanted to prove a point and created the conditions to collect the data to prove that point. I hate that it's often the only psychological experiment many people are familiar with.

[mateo411]

What about the Milgram experiment? This is also a very well known psychological experiment. Was the science behind the Milgram experiment rigorous?

[jbullock35]

Milgram's obedience studies didn't involve randomized treatments, and he had small numbers of subjects (typically around 40) in each of his many conditions. On the other hand, Milgram's investigations were serious, systematic, and in good faith -- which makes them worlds better than the Stanford Prison Experiment.

Another reply in this thread suggests that "a large number of participants may have been aware that the actor wasn't really suffering when they administered the punishment." I've studied the topic and found no evidence of this point. In addition, the claim is hard to square with many subjects' reactions -- for example, their nervous laughter and their frequent protests, even as they continued to deliver what they thought were harmful electric shocks.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25928569 for more on efforts to replicate Milgram's results.

Tl;dr: there is no equivalence between the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram's work on obedience. Milgram's work was superior.

[enkid]

From what I have read (I'm not a psychologist, so take everything I say with a grain of salt), the Milgram experiment had some major ethical issues and doesn't meet modern standards for statistical evidence. There's also accusations that the data may have been manipulated and the results don't directly support the claim that Milgram was making. For example, a large number of participants may have been aware that the actor wasn't really suffering when they administered the punishment. This would seriously skew the results.

[seph-reed]

Calling it an awful example of science seems a bit extreme.

There is definitely something to learn from such an experiment, albeit not what was intended.

[99_00]

>the Stanford Prison Experiment is an awful example of science.

This may be true, but I don't think the evidence you give supports your assertion.

>It was a researcher who wanted to prove a point and created the conditions to collect the data to prove that point

"prove a point" is the hypothesis

"created the conditions" is the experiment

"collect the data to prove that point" is the observation

[enkid]

No, an experiment should not be set up to prove a hypothesis, it should be set up to test a hypothesis. In one the hypothesis is falsifiable, and in the other it's not.

[99_00]

If people didn't act the way the experimenter expected wouldn't that disprove their hypothesis in this case?

[enkid]

No, because people did behave differently than he expected, and he coached them to behave in line with his expectations. He wasn't a neutral observer, he was a guiding force and the superintendent of the pretend prison. This is what I mean when I say it wasn't an experiment.