Compare And Contrast Milgram And Zimbardo

In Stanley Milgram’s “The perils of obedience” and Philip G. Zimbardo's “The Stanford Prison Experiment” the influence that authority holds is analyzed and tested in a variety of social experiments. Milgram asserts that any individual can excuse themselves from the responsibility of their role, regardless of how evil, on the grounds that there is someone ordering them to do so. However, Zimbardo claims that authority doesn’t have to be an individual, stating that anyone, be it a prison guard or a prisoner, will ultimately fill and perpetuate their assigned role as a result of authoritative factors and environments. However, the way in which both of the authors go to reaching these conclusions differs greatly.

The first example of these differences is seen in the introduction of both texts. In his article, Milgram begins by speaking of

This is done by providing the audience with an occasional break in format, to either give an opinion or thought on something. These kinds of breaks are seen most explicitly in “The Stanford Prison Experiment.” An example of this can be seen when Zimbardo is recounting the 2nd day uprising from the prisoners, stating: "Because the first day passed without incident, we were surprised and totally unprepared for the rebellion that broke out in the morning of the second day" (Zimbardo 110) By giving his own reactions, Zimbardo illustrates to the readers what his thoughts were when these events were transpiring. If Zimbardo had, alternatively, chose to smoothly segue from one day to the next, the audience would miss out on gaining this new dimension, specifically of what the author thinks. These kinds of authorial interjections make sense in Zimbardo's case, as his audience has already been adjusted to his less formal way of writing, but when these same kinds of asides happen in Milgram’s article, they take a on different