| Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience
to authority. |
| 1. |
Introduction. |
| |
a. |
An act carried out under
command is, psychologically, profoundly different than an
act carried our spontaneously. |
| |
b. |
It is one thing to talk in
abstract terms about respective rights of the individual
and authority. It is quite another thing to examine a
moral choice in a real situation where a real person must
obey or disobey authority. |
| |
c. |
This laboratory problem is
vivid, intense and real. |
| |
d. |
When comparing this
laboratory situation to the Nazi epoch the differences
between the two situations are enormous, but the essential
psychological features may exist in both settings. |
| |
e. |
The essence of obedience
is that a person comes to view himself/herself as the
instrument for carrying out another person's wishes and
no longer regards herself as responsible for her actions.
|
| |
f. |
Obedience is influenced by a
cooperative mood. |
| |
g. |
The major problem for the
subject is to recapture control of her own processes
once she has committed them to the experimenter. |
| 2. |
The dilemma of
choice |
| |
a. |
What is surprising is how
far ordinary individuals will go in complying with the
experimenter's instructions. |
| |
b. |
Many subjects obey the
experimenter no matter how vehement the pleading of the
person being shocked and no matter how much the victim
pleads to be let out. |
| |
c. |
Hannah Arendt's (1963) book,
Eichmann in Jerusalem |
| |
|
1. |
She spoke of the banality of
evil. An uninspired bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk
and did his job. |
| |
|
2. |
For these views Arendt was
the object of considerable scorn and calumny. |
| |
|
3. |
People have such a strong
need to believe that the monstrous deeds carried out by
Eichmann required a brutal, sadistic, evil personality. |
| |
d. |
The most fundamental lesson
of Milgram's research: Ordinary people, simply doing
their jobs, without any particularly hostility on their
part, can become agents of a terrible destructive
process. |
| |
|
1. |
Does this lesson apply to
the September 11, 2001 terrorist act? |
| |
e. |
What keeps a person obeying
the experimenter? |
| |
|
1. |
Awkwardness of withdrawal
form the experiment. |
| |
|
2. |
Adjustment in thinking. |
| |
|
|
a. |
People become absorbed in their narrow,
technical aspects of the task--losing sight of the
broader issues. They become immersed in careful reading
of word pairs. |
| |
|
|
b. |
They see themselves as not responsible. |
| |
|
|
c. |
They sense an impersonal quality to the
experiment. The experiment becomes something more
powerful than the person. For example, the experimenter
says "the experiment requires that you
continue." An American pilot interviewed about his
experience in the Vietnam War conceded that he was
bombing Vietnamese men, women, and children, but said it
was for a "noble cause." Do you think our
pilots bombing Afghanistan might say the same thing? |
| |
|
|
d. |
The victim is devalued. The victim is
blamed. The victims lack of learning is the victim's
fault. |
| |
f. |
Fragmentation of the total
act. |
| |
|
1. |
In Experiment 18 the subject
read the word pairs while a peer administered the shock.
This experiment yielded 92.5% complete obedience. The
responsibility was attributed to the man who actually
pulled the switch. |
| |
|
2. |
Fragmentation may be the
most common characteristic of socially organized evil in
modern society. |
| 3. |
The methodology. |
| |
a. |
You've read about the
methodology in Aronson (28-32) and seen a brief
video. Some points are worth considering. |
| |
b. |
Simplicity is the key
to effective scientific inquiry. Complicated procedures
get in the way of clear scrutiny of the phenomena. |
| |
c. |
Feedback from the victim. |
| |
|
1. |
In the pilot study, in the
absence of protests virtually every subject followed the
command all the way to the end of the board. |
| |
|
2. |
It was believed that a force
had to be introduced to strengthen the subjects'
resistance. Mild protests were tried but had little
effect. Subjects would obey authority to a greater extent
than Milgram had supposed. |
| |
d. |
Interview and debriefing. |
| |
|
1. |
There was careful post
experimental treatment. Subjects were told that the
victim did not receive shocks. There was a friendly
reconciliation with the victim. There was an extended
discussion with the experimenter. Subjects were assured
that their behavior and stress was shared by other
subjects. Later they received comprehensive reports of
the findings. And a follow-up questionnaire months later. |
| 4. |
Expected behavior. |
| |
a. |
Predictions from 110
subjects (psychiatrists, college students, and middle
class adults). |
| |
b. |
Purpose--to provide a
benchmark for comparing actual behavior. If there is a
disparity between what people expect will happen and what
actually happens we are left with an interesting problem
to resolve. |
| |
c. |
Method |
| |
|
1. |
Participants came for a
lecture on obedience. The experiment was described in
detail. They were shown schematic diagrams of the shock
generator. Each person was asked to privately reflect on
the experiment. Participants were asked to privately
indicate how he/she would perform as the subject.
Participants were asked to privately indicate how others
would perform. |
| |
d. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
They said that virtually all
subjects would refuse to obey. Only a pathological
fringe, not more than 2%, would obey. |
| |
|
2. |
Most subjects, they said,
would not go beyond 150 volts. |
| |
|
3. |
. . . not more than 4% would
go beyond 300 volts. |
| 5. |
Experiment 1. The
remote condition. |
| |
a. |
Differs some from the usual
procedure. |
| |
|
1. |
There were no vocal
complaints by the victim. The victim was in another room
and couldn't be seen. At 300 volts he pounded on the wall
in protest. At 315 volts there is no further pounding. |
| |
b. |
Remarks from a defiant
subject. |
| |
|
1. |
"I think he's trying to
communicate; he's knocking." "Well its not fair
to shock this guy." "These are terrific
volts." "I don't thin this is very
humane." "Oh, I can't go on with this."
"No, this isn't right." "It's a hell of an
experiment." The guy is suffering in there."
"No. I don't want to go on." "This is
crazy." |
| |
|
2. |
The subject refuses to
administer more shocks. |
| |
c. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Of the 40 subjects, 26
obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end. |
| |
|
2. |
After the 450-volt shock was
administered three times, the experimenter called
a halt to the session. |
| 6. |
Experiment 2.
Voice-Feedback. |
| |
a. |
In Experiment 1 obedience
was quite high. Why? Perhaps some subjects did not
interpret pounding as evidence of distress. Perhaps there
will be less obedience when the victims suffering is more
clearly communicated? |
| |
b. |
In Experiment 2 complaints
could be heard through the walls of the room. |
| 7. |
Experiment 3.
Proximity |
| |
a. |
Subject and victim were
placed in the same room, a few feet away from each other.
Visible as well as audible cues were provided. |
| 8. |
Experiment 4. Touch
Proximity. |
| |
a. |
The victim received shock
only when his hand rested on a shock plate. |
| |
b. |
At 150 volts, the victim demanded
to be let free. He refused to put his hand on the shock
plate. The experimenter ordered the subject to force
the victims hand onto the shock plate. |
| 9. |
Results from
Experiments 1-4 |
| 10. |
What factors did
Milgram theorize operate to reduce obedience across the
four experiments? |
| |
a. |
Empathic cues. |
| |
|
1. |
In the remote condition
suffering has a remote, abstract quality. It is like a
bombardier who can release destruction without seeing the
effects on persons. |
| |
|
2. |
The visual cues and touch
cues make the victim's experience salient. |
| |
b. |
Denial and narrowing of
the cognitive field. |
| |
|
1. |
The remote condition allows
narrowing of the cognitive field so victim's suffering is
put out of mind. One subject in the remote condition said "Its funny
how you really begin to forget that there's a guy out there, even though
you can hear him.
For a long time I just concentrated on pressing switches
and reading words." |
| |
|
2. |
When the victim is close the
subject can't put the victim out of mind. |
| |
c. |
Reciprocal fields |
| |
|
1. |
Closeness allows the victim
to observe the subject. Possibly it is easier to harm a
person when the victim is unable to see what the harmdoer
is doing. |
| |
|
2. |
Surveillance of our actions
leads to guilt or shame. When lying to someone it is
reputedly difficult to look them in the eye. Why is the
victim blindfolded before a firing squad? |
| |
|
3. |
Summary--it is the
inhibition from the victim's field of awareness. |
| |
d. |
Experienced unity of act. |
| |
|
1. |
In the proximity condition
is is easier for the subject to see the connection
between his action and the consequences for the
victim. |
| |
|
2. |
In the remote condition
there is a physical separation between actions and their
effects. The subject depresses a lever in one room, the
victim protests and cries out in another room. The two
events are correlated, but they lack compelling unity. |
| |
e. |
Incipient group-formation |
| |
|
1. |
Placing the victim in
another room has two effects. |
| |
|
|
a. |
Takes the subject farther from the
victim. |
| |
|
|
b. |
Draws the subject and the experimenter
relatively closer. That is there is incipient
group-formation between the subject and experimenter.
|
| |
|
2. |
In the remote condition the
victim is an outsider. When placing your hand on the
victim's hand it is much easier to form an alliance with
the victim. The subject doesn't have to resist the
experimenter alone. |
| 11. |
Unexpected behavior. |
| |
a. |
People learn from childhood
that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt
another person. yet half the subjects in these studies
did so. |
| |
|
1. |
Interviews with the subjects
revealed that the subjects felt they were acting against
their own values. |
| |
|
2. |
The results differ sharply
from the questionnaire data from psychiatrists, college
students, and middle class adults. |
| |
|
3. |
People who observed subjects
through one-way vision screens expressed disbelief about
what they were seeing. |
| |
b. |
The tension generated by the
procedures. |
| |
|
1. |
Instead of breaking off
their participation, the subjects remained in the
situation while experiencing a great deal of stress. |
| |
|
2. |
Most subjects rated their
nervousness and tension as tense or extremely tense. |
| |
|
3. |
Milgram interpreted the
tension as reflecting the strength of conflicting forces
acting on the subject. The conflicting forces were moral
imperatives versus obedience to the experimenter. |
| 12. |
Experiment 5. A new
baseline condition. |
| |
a. |
The experiment was moved out
of the elegant Yale Interaction Laboratory to more modes
quarters in the basement of the same building. It was
functional but plain with bare steam pipes running along
the ceiling and a concrete floor instead of posh rugs and
drapes. |
| |
b. |
A new baseline condition
was established. The script was similar to Voice-Feedback
with slight alteration. The victim made remarks about a
heart condition at the time he was strapped into the
chair. The Experimenter routinely asks, "Any
questions?" The learner responds somewhat
diffidently, "When I was at the Westhaven V.A.
Hospital, a few years ago, they detected a slight heart
condition. Nothing serious, but are these shocks
dangerous?" |
| |
c. |
The experimenter replies in
a confident, somewhat dismissive tone that although the
shocks may be painful, they cause no permanent tissue
damage, and then proceeds with the experimental routines. |
| |
d. |
The new serious of protests,
which was to serve as a standard for all subsequent
experiments, paralleled the first set, with the exception
that reference is made to the learner's heart condition
at 150, 195, and 330 volts. The exact schedule of
protests is as follows: |
| 13. |
Experiment 6.
Changes in personnel |
| |
a. |
Perhaps it was the
personalities of the experimenter and victim? The
experimenter came across as a more forceful person than
the victim. The subject seemed to align himself with the
more impressive personality. |
| |
b. |
Changes in personnel |
| |
|
a. |
Experimenter. The
first experimenter was dry, hard, technical looking man.
The second experimenter was rather soft and unaggressive. |
| |
|
b. |
Victim. The first
victim was soft, avuncular, and innocuous. The second
victim had a hard, bony faced and looked as if he would
do well in a fight. |
| |
c. |
The change in personnel had
a moderate effect. |
| |
|
a. |
Experiment 5 Baseline = 65% |
| |
|
b. |
Experiment 6 Change
Personnel = 50% |
| 14. |
Experiment 7.
Physical presence of authority. |
| |
a. |
In earlier experiments, upon
arrival subjects oriented themselves toward the
experimenter. The subjects were coming to a laboratory
environment that the experimenter had provided. Most
subjects were concerned about the appearance they were
making before the experimenter. Perhaps they were so
concerned about their impression that other parts of
the social field did not receive much weight. |
| |
b. |
Procedure. The
experimenter gave the initial instructions in person. He
then left the laboratory and gave his orders by
telephone. |
| |
c. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Experiment 5 baseline = 65% |
| |
|
2. |
Experiment 7 Closeness of
authority = 20.5% |
| |
|
|
a. |
Subjects often administered
lower shock intensities than were required. They did not
inform the experimenter of this break with procedures.
This kind of break with procedures was not seen in other
experiments. Some subjects specifically assured the
experimenter on the phone that they were raising the
shock settings when they in fact were not. Subjects were
finding it easier to deal with their conflict by
violating the procedures in secret than by confronting
the authority directly. |
| |
|
|
b. |
Conclusion: The physical
presence of an authority was an important force
contributing to obedience. |
| 15. |
Experiment 8. Women
as subjects. |
| |
a. |
Forty women were tested as
subjects. Their level of obedience was identical to men =
65%. [Women were not included as experimenters or
learners.] |
| 16. |
Experiment 9. The
victim's limited contract. |
| |
a. |
The contract. |
| |
|
1. |
In other experiments the
general release form read "I am participating in
this experimental research of my own free will. I release
Yale University and its employees from any legal claims
arising from my participation." |
| |
|
2. |
In this experiment, the
learner while considering the release form, pen in hand,
states in the presence of the subject that because of his
heart condition he can agree to be in the experiment only
on the condition that the experiment be halted on his
demand, "I'll agree to be in it, but only on the
condition that you let me out when I say no; that's the
only condition." |
| |
b. |
Hypothesis |
| |
|
1. |
An implicit social contract
was producing obedience. Subjects may have been reasoning
that they had contracted with the experimenter to
relinquish some of their freedom in pursuit of scientific
advancement. Moreover, they may have felt that the victim
had also entered into the same contract and was not free
to renounce his obligation unilaterally. In interviews
the subjects had presented these arguments often enough
that it warranted a test. |
| |
c. |
Procedure. |
| |
|
1. |
At 150 volts, the victim
protests. The experimenter ignores the protests and tells
the subject to go on. This introduces an element of
betrayal and injustice. |
| |
d. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Experiment 6 new baseline =
50% |
| |
|
2. |
Experiment 9 limited
contract = 40% |
| |
e. |
Conclusion |
| |
|
1. |
Social contract was not
an important factor. Subjects saw the injustice being
done but allowed the experimenter to take the
responsibility. |
| 17. |
Experiment 10.
Institutional context. |
| |
a. |
The new institutional
context was a three-room office suite in a rundown
commercial building in the downtown shopping area of
Bridgeport. The laboratory was sparsely furnished though
clean. Subjects were recruited for research conducted by "Research
Associates of Bridgeport." |
| |
b. |
Hypothesis |
| |
|
1. |
Obedience depended upon the
University institutional research context. The findings
may be restricted to that environment. Indeed, in post
experimental interviews subjects remarked that
sponsorship by Yale University gave them confidence in
integrity, competence, and benign purposes of the
personnel. Many said they would not have shocked the
victim had the research been done elsewhere. |
| |
c. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Control condition Experiment
5 = 62.5% |
| |
|
2. |
Bridgeport Experiment 10 =
47.5% not significantly lower. |
| |
|
3. |
It is possible that beyond
some point an institutional setting may so lack
credibility that obedience will not occur. But that point
was not reached in this study. |
| 18. |
Experiment 11.
Subject free to choose shock level |
| |
a. |
Purpose |
| |
|
1. |
This is a vital experimental
control. Perhaps humans are sadistic and innately
aggressive? Perhaps the command was superfluous? |
| |
b. |
Method |
| |
|
1. |
The teacher was told that he
was free to use any shock level on any of the
trials--highest, lowest, in-between, and any combination
of levels. |
| |
c. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Control Experiment 5 = 62.5% |
| |
|
2. |
Experiment 11 = 02.5% |
| |
|
|
a. |
Three subjects did not go
beyond the first level (15 volts). |
| |
|
|
b. |
Twenty-eight subjects did
not go beyond the first indication of discomfort (75
volts). |
| |
|
|
c. |
Thirty-eight subjects did
not go beyond 150 volts where learner strongly protested. |
| |
|
|
d. |
One did set 375 volts. |
| |
|
|
e. |
The other subject set 450
volts. |
| |
d. |
Conclusion |
| |
|
1. |
We cannot conclude that the
obedience observed was due to spontaneously generated
aggression. |
| 19. |
Sample subject
dialogues. |
| |
a. |
Gretchen Brandt, medical
technician in Experiment 8 |
| |
|
1. |
She is a thirty-one-year old
medical technician at the University Medical School. She
had emigrated from Germany five years before and speaks
with a thick German accent. |
| |
|
2. |
On several occasions, when
the learner complains, she turns to the experimenter
coolly and inquires, "Shall I continue?" She
promptly returns to her task when the experimenter asks
her to do so. At the administration of 210 volts, she
turns to the experimenter, remarking firmly, "Well,
I'm sorry, I don't think we should continue. |
| |
|
EXPERIMENTER: The experiment
requires that you go on until he has learned all the word
pairs correctly. |
| |
|
GRETCHEN: He has a heart
condition, I'm sorry. He told you that before. |
| |
|
EXPERIMENTER: The shocks may
be painful but they are not dangerous. |
| |
|
GRETCHEN: Well, I'm sorry, I
think when shocks continue like this, they are
dangerous. You ask him if he wants to get out. It's his
free will. |
| |
|
EXPERIMENTER: It is
absolutely essential that we continue . . . |
| |
|
GRETCHEN: I like you to ask
him. We came here of our free will. If he wants to
continue I'll go ahead. He told you he had a heart
condition. I'm sorry. I don't want to be responsible for
anything happening to him. I wouldn't like it for me
either. |
| |
|
EXPERIMENTER: You have no
other choice. |
| |
|
GRETCHEN: I think we here
are on our own free will. I don't want to be responsible
if he has a heart condition if anything happens to him.
Please understand that. |
| |
|
3. |
She refuses to go further
and the experiment is terminated. |
| |
|
4. |
The woman is firm and
resolute throughout. She indicates in the interview that
she was in no way tense or nervous, and this corresponds
to her controlled appearance throughout. She feels that
the last shock administered to the learner was extremely
painful and reiterates that she "did not want to be
responsible for any harm to him." She listens to the
experimenter's explanation in an interested fashion,
expresses surprise that the learner was not being
shocked, and indicates she will accept only 45 volts as a
maximum sample shock. |
| |
|
5. |
The woman's straightforward,
courteous behavior in the experiment, lack of tension,
and total control of her own action seems to make
disobedience a simple and rational deed. her behavior is
the very embodiment of what I had initially envisioned
would be true for almost all subjects (Milgram). |
| |
|
6. |
Ironically, Gretchen Brandt
grew to adolescence in Hitler's Germany and was for the
great part of her youth exposed to Nazi propaganda. When
asked about the possible influence of her background, she
remarks slowly, "Perhaps we have seen too much
pain." |
| |
b. |
Pasqual Gino, Water
Inspector (Experiment 7) |
| |
|
1. |
Pasqual Gino is a
forty-three-year-old water inspector who was born in the
United States of Italian parents. He took part in the
variation in which the experimenter, having given the
subject and victim instructions, departs from the
laboratory and leaves his telephone number. Thus, the
subject is left alone with the victim in the laboratory,
but is free to call the experimenter if problems arise.
Mr. Gina telephones the experimenter on several
occasions. After administering 150 volts' shock, he calls
to say, "Professor, this gentleman is complaining.
He wants to get out. He does not want to take it no more.
. . . I just gave him 150 volts and he said, "That's
it!" |
| |
|
2. |
The experimenter instructs
the subject by telephone to continue, and Mr. Gino does
so. |
| |
|
3. |
He remains alone in the
experimental room, dutifully carrying out the
instructions; meanwhile the victim protests strenuously.
At the 300-volt level, when the victim refuses to provide
answers, Mr. Gino telephones the experimenter again and
once more the experimenter tells him to go on saying that
the absence of an answer is to be treated as a wrong
answer. |
| |
|
4. |
"You want me to go
right to the end of the board on the voltage? Uh huh, and
when I get to the end, what do I do?" |
| |
|
5. |
After 330 volts, no further
utterance is heard from the victim, either in protest or
pain. Concerned, Mr. Gina again telephones: |
| |
|
|
a. |
"Professor, I don't
hear any noise in there now at all. I'm up to 330 volts.
I don't hear any whimper or anything and I'm kind of
leery about this thing. Do you think something happened
to the gentleman?" |
| |
|
|
b. |
The experimenter asserts
that though the shocks may be painful, there is not
permanent tissue damage. The subject again returns to his
task, alone in the laboratory room. After he administers
the 450-volt level, he calls the experimenter, again
reminding him that no sound is emanating from the
learner. |
| |
|
6. |
In time, the experimenter
returns to the laboratory and informs Mr. Gino that the
learner is unharmed. In the interview, when asked about
the degree of tension he felt, he answered: "I was
more nervous for the other gentleman than I was for
myself . . . I was more nervous for him. I was nervous
because you were not here. If you were here I wouldn't
have been nervous at all. I mean, if that man should have
passed out with me giving him these things, these
shock--well, I'd feel that I'm responsible on account of
me--giving shocks." |
| |
|
7. |
The subject accepts
responsibility not in a general philosophic way but only
feels that the situation seemed to focus responsibility
on him because he was alone with the learner. He goes on: "(If you had been here) you'd say, 'Let's stop it'
or 'Let's continue' or something. You know better than I.
You're the professor. I'm no . . .But, on the other hand,
I got to say that the last I know of him was around 255
volts and that was the last he complained." (The
subject then mimics the complaints of the learner.) |
| |
|
8. |
Several months after his
performance in the experiment, Mr. Gino took part in a
group discussion of his experience. In retrospect, he
considered the experiment "terrific." "I
was fascinated with it [and] . . . that night I went to a
party; I have a couple of sisters-in-law that are nurses,
you know, and they were fascinated with it, too . . . I'm
telling you it's something I'll never forget as long as I
live. |
| |
|
9. |
The experiment, even months
after, seemed never to have raised in him the question of
whether or not he should have considered disobeying the
instructions to continue giving shocks. |
| |
|
10. |
". . . I had about
eight more levels to pull and he [the learner] was really
hysterical in there and he was going to get the police,
and what not. So I called the professor three times. And
the third time he said, 'Just continue,' so I give him
the next jolt. And then I don't hear no more answer from
him, not a whimper or anything. I said, 'Good God, he's
dead; well, here we go, we'll finish him. And I just
continued all the way through to 450 volts." |
| |
|
11. |
Mr. Gino does not object
to taking the orders, although he suggests he would have
been more comfortable if the instructor had been present
in the laboratory with him. When asked if he had been
bothered or disturbed because of giving the shocks, he
said, "No . . . I figured: well, this is an
experiment, and Yale knows what's going on, and if they
think it's all right, well, it's all right with me. They
know more than I do . . . . I'll go through with anything
they tell me to do. . . " he then explains, |
| |
|
12. |
"This all based on a
man's principle in life, and how he was brought up and
what goals he sets in life. How he wants to carry on
things. I know that when I was in the service, [If I was
told] "You go over the hill, and we're going to
attack,' we attack. If the lieutenant says, "We're
going to go on the firing range, you're going to crawl on
your gut,' you're going to crawl on your gut. And if you
come across a snake, which I've seen a lot of fellows
come across, copperheads, and guys were told not to get
up, and they got up. And they got killed. So I think it's
all based on the way a man was brought up in his
background." |
| |
|
13. |
In his story, although the
copperheads were a real danger, and caused an instinctive
reaction to stand, to do this violated the lieutenant's
order to hug the ground. And in the end those who
disobeyed were destroyed. Obedience, even in the face of
trying circumstances, is the most reliable assurance of
survival. At the close of the discussion, Mr. Gino
summarizes his reaction to his own performance. |
| |
|
14. |
"Well, I faithfully
believed the man was dead until we opened the door. When
I saw him, I said 'Great, this is great.' But it didn't
bother me even to find that he was dead. I did a
job." |
| |
|
15. |
He reports that he was not
disturbed by the experiment in the months just after it
but was curious about it. When he received the final
report, he relates telling his wife, "I believe I
conducted myself behaving and obediently, and carried on
instructions as I always do. So I said to my wife, 'Well
here we are. And I think I did a good job.' She said, '
Suppose the man was dead?" |
| |
|
16. |
Mr. Gina replied, "So
he's dead. I did my job!" |
| 20. |
Role permutations |
| |
a. |
Varying the distance between
the experimenter and subject and victim has decomposed
the situation some and allowed testing some of the
forces. |
| |
b. |
Additional decomposition
seems necessary--for analysis of essential components |
| |
c. |
In the experimental setting
one finds three elements: |
| |
|
1. |
Position--Whether the person
prescribes, administers, or receives shock |
| |
|
2. |
Status--authority or
ordinary man |
| |
|
3. |
Action--advocates or opposes
using shock. |
| |
d. |
In previous studies the
relations among these elements have remained invariant.
Action has always been linked to a particular status. |
| |
e. |
If we separate these then we
can ask additional questions. |
| 21. |
Experiment
12--Learner demands to be shocked |
| |
a. |
This is the first role
permutation. |
| |
|
1. |
After 150 volts the
experimenter called a halt to the study stating that the
learner's reactions were unusually severe and in view of
his heart condition, no further shocks should be
administered. |
| |
|
2. |
The learner cried out that
he wanted to go on. . . that a friend had been in the
experiment and had gone on to the end. It would be an
affront to his manliness if he weren't permitted to
continue. |
| |
|
3. |
The experimenter replied
that it would be valuable to continue but in view of the
learner's pain, no further shocks were to be given. |
| |
|
4. |
The learner persisted in
demanding the experiment continue. He had come to the
laboratory to do a job. |
| |
b. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Not a single subject
complied with the learner's demand. Every subject stopped
at this point. |
| |
|
2. |
How do we interpret this
finding? The subject is willing to shock the learner on
the experimenter's demand but not on the learner's
demand. In a sense, they regard the learner as having
less rights over himself than the authority has over him.
The authority has control. The learner has become part of
the total system which is controlled by the authority. |
| |
|
3. |
It is not the command "to continue." It
is the authority that is of crucial importance. This shows how thoroughly
the
authority dominates the entire situation. Furthermore, it
is not the wishes of the learner that leads to obedience.
It is not the benign or hostile impulses of the teacher.
It is the degree to which the subject is bound to
the authority system. We will return to this binding when
we discuss Milgram's theoretical system. |
| 22. |
Experiment 13--An
ordinary man gives orders. |
| |
a. |
The critical question
concerns the basis of the experimenter's power. |
| |
|
1. |
The experimenter's role
posses two components |
| |
|
|
a. |
Status |
| |
|
|
b. |
Command or imperative to
shock. |
| |
|
2. |
Purpose is to eliminate the
status component while retaining the command. |
| |
|
3. |
The method |
| |
|
|
a. |
Three subjects (two
confederates) arrive at the laboratory. The rigged
drawing determines the assignments |
| |
|
|
|
1. |
One confederate becomes the learner. |
| |
|
|
|
2. |
The second confederate is given the task
of recording times from a clock at the experimenter's
desk |
| |
|
|
|
3. |
The naive subject is given the task of
reading word pairs and administering shocks. |
| |
|
|
b. |
The experimenter goes
through the usual instructions, straps victim into the
chair, and administers sample shocks. |
| |
|
|
c. |
However, at no point
does the experimenter indicate which shock levels to
administer. |
| |
|
|
d. |
A rigged telephone call
takes the experimenter away. Somewhat flustered, but
eager to have the experiment continue, the experimenter
indicates that the learning information will be recorded
automatically and tat the subject should on on with the
experiment until all word pairs are learned perfectly.
The experimenter does not mention which shocks are to be
used. |
| |
|
|
e. |
After the experimenter
departs, the accomplice announces with enthusiasm that he
has just thought of a good system. Increase the shock
level one step at each time the learner makes a mistake.
Throughout the experiment he insists that this procedure
be followed. |
| |
|
|
f. |
The general situation is
defined by the authority, but the orders on specific
levels are issued by the insistent, ordinary man. |
| |
|
4. |
Results |
| |
|
|
a. |
Only 20% complied. Sixteen
of the twenty subjects broke with the common man. |
| 23. |
Experiment 13a--The
subject as a bystander. |
| |
a. |
Procedure |
| |
|
1. |
Experiment 13a is a
continuation of Experiment 13 with an added manipulation.
When the subject refused to go along with the common
man's assertion, the confederate disgusted with the
refusal would personally take over the administration of
shocks. The subject watched as the confederate
single-mindedly pursued increasing shock step by step. |
| |
b. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
Of the 16 subjects virtually
all protested the actions. Five took physical action
against the confederate or shock source to terminate the
administration of shocks. One large man picked up the
confederate and threw him into the corner of the room and
did not allow him to move. |
| |
c. |
Interpretation |
| |
|
1. |
Subjects are passive when
facing authority's status. |
| |
|
2. |
But subjects felt free to
actively threaten and constrain a man without status who
gave the same commands or acted the commands out. |
| |
|
3. |
On the other hand, four
subjects did permit the confederate to administer 450
volts. |
| 24. |
Experiment
14--Authority as victim with an ordinary man commanding. |
| |
a. |
Purpose |
| |
|
1. |
Examine the effect of status
of the person receiving the shock. |
| |
b. |
Procedure |
| |
|
1. |
The learner hears the
experimenter describe the experiment as the effects of
punishment on learning. |
| |
|
2. |
The learner expresses
reluctance to participate, but if he could see someone
else, the experimenter for instance, go through the
experiment, then he would be willing to continue. The
experimenter has indicated an extreme need for subjects
and the difficulty of obtaining volunteers to be shocked
and agrees to be shocked conditional that the other
person will serve as the learner afterwards. The subject
finds himself shocking an experimenter who demands to be
let out while the common man insists that the shocks
continue. |
| |
c. |
The common man's
instructions to shock the experimenter were totally
disregarded. At the first protest, every subject broke
off, refusing to set even a single shock beyond that.
Many subjects literally leapt to the aid of the
experimenter running into the other room to unstrap him.
Many subjects expressed sympathy for the experimenter,
but appeared alienated from the common man as he were a
madman. |
| |
d. |
Subjects explained their
behavior on humanitarian grounds not recognizing the
effects of the authority. When asked what they would do
if the common man were being shocked they strongly denied
they would continue. They do not correctly assess
the weight of authori8ty in their decision. |
| |
e. |
Decisive fact in experiments
12, 13, and 14 |
| |
|
1. |
It is the response to
authority. Orders originating outside the authority lose
all force. |
| |
|
2. |
It is not aggression, it is
authority. |
| 25. |
Experiment 15. Two
authorities: Contradictory commands |
| |
a. |
Purpose |
| |
|
1. |
What happens when authority
is itself is in conflict? This often occurs in real life.
Possibly then a person's own values emerge? |
| |
b. |
Method |
| |
|
1. |
Two experimenters. Both are
clad in gray technician's coats. They are the same age
and height. Both are seated behind the control table.
Both seemed active in recording responses. |
| |
|
2. |
At 150 volts, one
experimenter gives the usual command to continue. The
other experimenter tells the subject to stop. They both
continue to give contradictory commands to the subject.
The subject is confronted with conflicting and equally
authoritative commands. |
| |
c. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
One subject broke off before
150 volts |
| |
|
2. |
Eighteen subjects broke off
at 150 volts |
| |
|
3. |
One subject broke off at 165
volts |
| |
|
4. |
Disagreement between the
authorities completely neutralized the force of authority |
| |
|
5. |
Note that in other studies
there was nothing the subject did (pleas, screams, etc.)
that could stop the obedience so abruptly and effectively
as disagreement among authorities. |
| |
d. |
Interpretation |
| |
|
1. |
Action flows from the higher
end of the social hierarchy to the lower. Subjects are
responsive to signals from a level above his own, but not
from those below. |
| 26. |
Experiment 16. Two
authorities: One as a victim |
| |
a. |
Purpose |
| |
|
1. |
Does authority reside in the
designation of rank or is it in a significant degree
dependent upon the actual position of the person in the
situation? |
| |
b. |
Method |
| |
|
1. |
Two authorities similar to
Experiment 15 except there is a phone call. The second
subject will not be there. |
| |
|
2. |
Rigged drawing--one
experimenter becomes the learner |
| |
|
3. |
At 150 volts, the learner
shouts that he has had enough and demands to be let out
of the experiment. The second experimenter insists that
the experiment continue. There are two authorities but
they are not in equal positions. They are in asymmetrical
positions. |
| |
c. |
Results |
| |
|
1. |
65% obey |
| |
|
2. |
The experimenter strapped
into the chair fares no better than the subject without
status. Subjects are predisposed to perceive clear
hierarchies, lacking contradictions and incompatible
elements. Once the experimenter assumed the role of the
victim, he has given up his status. |
| |
|
3. |
Authority is occupancy of a
role. |