Brendan Maher reviews two films probing notorious US psychological experiments.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Related links
Related links
Related links in Nature Research
Psychology: A social animal revealed
Related external links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maher, B. Experimental psychology: The anatomy of obedience. Nature 523, 408–409 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/523408a
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/523408a
Kenneth Pimple
My comment is based solely on the paragraph beginning, "Others have wondered..."
I assume that "the real-life 'John Wayne', Dave Eshelman" was not then and is not now a psychologist and has little basis to claim that "the experiment reveals no generalizable truths about humans' propensity for evil." However, Mr. Eshelman's statement that he was "playing a part ... to see how far he could push people" suggests that his role – whether described as a pretend guard or a would-be experimenter – shaped his behavior, just as Zimbardo expected.
It would have been much more interesting if one of the guards had "pushed" the other guards to be decent. For all I know, one did.
Although Zimbardo's and Milgram's research traumatized their subjects and had other flaws, they remain important and strongly make two points: (1) It is unethical for scientists to bully or abet bullying. (2) Power corrupts.
Neither of these are new, but we easily forget them both. That's another lesson to learn and keep learning.