1
Reaction Paper #3
This Reaction paper is based on the readings from the social chapters and the
discussions we have had in class about socialization, social interactions, and social norms. It will
be more specifically about some social experiments I engaged in following our last class
discussion and presentation of the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments on conformity.
To begin I will share my thoughts about the Stanley Milgram Experiment on obedience
to authority. In the video we watched there was a group of individuals who thought they were
going to participate in a memory test. They meet another person they believe to be another
participant in the memory test. In fact the other people involved are actors and the person in
the white coat establishes his authority by describing to the participants that there will be an
electric shock administered to the person being tested. They put the actor in a chair and strap
him down in restraints. The interesting part, in my opinion, was how they had the participant
observe the actor get strapped to the chair. Once they leave the room and enter the testing
room they see the machine that will be giving the actor an electric shock if they answer the
multiple choice question incorrectly, all the way to the point where it is labeled as “XXX”. The
reason why I thought this was most interesting is because it gives the participant the
perspective that the actor has a complete lack of control in the experiment. How can someone
take the action of hurting someone, another person, in the name of science? The power of
authority in this experiment persuades nine out of twelve participants to go all the way to 450
volts and administrating the deadly amount of electricity into the person strapped to the chair.
2
Reaction Paper #3
This was an experiment that shook my belief that most people are inherently good and
would make the best choices in situations like that. Now that puts my judgment on those
individuals in an unfair way. We were not given internal or external pressures of any of the
participants. We had no background information about the participants, whether they were
making a lot of money, incentivized by something else, and/or given a substantial rationale on
why this is such an important experiment that most people, including me possibly, would be
willing to potentially end another person’s life in the name of science.
The next experiment I will share my reaction to is the Stanford Prison Experiment. This
video brought me back to some personal experiences I have had in a work environment. The
Psychologist in charge of this experiment, Philip Zimbardo poses these questions in the
introduction of the video, “What happens if you put good people in an evil place?” “Does the
situation outside of you, the institution, or does the things inside of you, your attitude, your
values, your morality, allow you to rise above the environment?” They decided to create a
mock prison environment in the basement of Stanford University. Unlike the previous video,
the Milgram Experiment, we are given some background information of the social pressures
occurring at the time of the experiment. The social pressures occurring were civil rights activism
and protest against the war. The participants were not aware of the location and would either
play the role of a guard or a prisoner and each would receive $15 per hour for their time. The
guards were given the instruction to keep the other participants acting as the prisoners in line.
They need to maintain law and order. If anyone escapes, the experiment would be over.
However, they could not use physical violence. The experiment started by blindfolding the
prisoners and bringing them to the basement. They were stripped and deloused. This started
3
Reaction Paper #3
the socialization of the participants in their roles. There were participants on both sides of the
experiment that decided to stir things up on the second day. The guards decided to prove a
point about how crappy the prison environment looks like, and the prisoners began to rebel
and use degrading language towards the guards.
During this video I began to have feelings of frustration and a sick stomach feeling,
because I was having some transference of an experience I had while working at a youth
residential treatment center that was a very secure and locked down environment. The youth
had established a culture of gangs and violence that mimicked their perspective of what prison
life was like. They had an internal hierarchy of groups and individuals who had a sense of
control through physical intimidation and sense of loyalty. There was the Wolf unit that was a
group of the biggest toughest young men in the program who had all had a history of
aggressive and assaultive behaviors. This group would orchestrate fights, assaults on other
youth and staff that had violated any of the social norms established by the groups. This
behavior was unknowingly reinforced by the staff working with the youth. The youth were
expected to sit in a chair in their rooms at all times. The staff did not interact with the youth
unless they did something that violated the rules of the program. If there was any violence a
group called, the Code Blue Team, that consisted of the biggest, strongest, most physically
daunting staff members. This group would respond to the violence by entering the room with
force, restrain the youth acting out and taking the youth to a room where they received
individual attention for hours at a time. Once the youth is compliant they are allowed back to
their room without any consequence for their previous behaviors. I was asked to participate in
this group and after two or three weeks had requested to be removed from it, because I did not
4
Reaction Paper #3
see any positive results from my efforts. In fact, as I began making changes to the social norms
within the program by interacting with the youth and building rapport with the group and saw
the behaviors of the group change in positive ways, I was put under investigation for being
reported as bribing the youth and not following protocol. What I was doing differently was
establishing a response cost for negative behaviors and reinforced the positive behaviors. We
created a weekly incentive activity for those who used appropriate behaviors for an entire
week. We would BBQ in the courtyard and those who did not earn the activity would have to sit
at the picnic tables and watch the rest of the group eat, swim in the pool, and enjoy the free
time. After a couple of months of this, the group had successfully incorporated the structure we
developed and most of the group could participate. This was when I was brought into the
Program Director’s office and questioned. I was being accused of bringing inappropriate
content into work allowing the youth to use it if they would behave for me. After explaining
how I created this new social norm within my group I was asked to stop, because it was not
consistent with the rest of the program. Within a week of removing the incentive plan, the
group I was working with had regressed to the same violent acting out behaviors they were
accustomed to.
I felt like I was violating my values, moral code, and belief system that all youth are good
and just need some guidance, support, and love. I quit two weeks later.