From obedience to contagion: Discourses of power in Milgram, Zimbardo, and the Facebook experiment

Abstract

When the public outcry concerning the 'Facebook experiment' began, many commentators drew parallels to controversial social science experiments from a prior era. The infamous Milgram (1963) and Zimbardo (1973) experiments concerning the social psychology of obedience and aggression seemed in some ways obvious analogs to the Facebook experiment, at least inasmuch as all three violated norms about the treatment of human subjects in research. But besides that, what do they really have in common? In fact, a close reading of Milgram, Zimbardo, and the Facebook experiment reveals something about the way power-both as a subject of scholarly inquiry and as an element wielded by researchersis conceptualized today. Although all three experiments were, in essence, measuring the researchers' ability to induce an emotional or behavioral change in subjects, the Facebook experiment did much more than the others to hide such considerations and naturalize the exercise of power at work in that study. This paper thus argues that the invisibility of power in the discourse of the Facebook experiment demonstrates, in miniature, the more insidious elements of big data as a whole.

Beyond the EULA: Improving Consent for Data Mining

“…Furthermore, as the study was not age-restricted, children may have unwittingly been subjected to the study [19]. Rucuber notes that the harms to any one individual in such experiments can be masked by the scale of the experiment [43].…”

Escape from the diffusion of responsibility: A review and guide for nurses

“…This study has been criticized for the research design, especially for the emotional stress experienced by research subjects (Recuber, ; Zimbardo, ). Nevertheless, Milgram's findings have withstood the rebuke (Armstrong, ).…”

“…In 1971, Zimbardo led a team of researchers from Stanford University to determine “if the normal tensions, degradations, and abuses of power in actual prisons could be recreated in an experimental setting” (Recuber, , p. 47). Male college students were recruited to receive $15/day for participating in a two‐week study.…”

“…Zimbardo's team “was surprised by the quickness and the extent to which their experiment was a success in its ability to create a toxic environment for its subjects” (Recuber, , p. 47). They concluded that the consequence of the prisoner role was to experience emotional breakdowns and become more submissive, while aggression was the consequence of “asserting the power inherent” with the role of the guard (Haney et al, , p. 12).…”

“…While Milgram claimed the tension experienced by their research subjects was unintentional, Zimbardo has been strongly criticized for intentionally creating an emotionally‐tense environment (Kulig, Pratt, & Cullen, ; Recuber, ; Tolich, ; Zimbardo, ). However, Zimbardo's findings and implications are accepted as general knowledge by numerous publications (Kulig et al, ).…”