Stanley Milgram --- Obedience to Authority Studies
Influence (e.g., Anthologies, Intro. Social texts, Media coverage ...)
What was the basic procedure and finding of Milgram’s study?
Procedure:
• Supposed random assignment to be either the "learner" or the "administrator"
(shocker)
• Read from the list of word pairs and determine if the answer from the "learner"
is correct.
• If answer is incorrect, the administrator has to shock the learner starting at 15
volts and going up at 15 volt increments (i.e., 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 …..) Generator
volts ranged form 15 to 450 (XXX Danger)
• Participants given a sample shock of 45 volt
• Overall Finding: 65% of participants shocked to the very end
What were the predictions regarding the rate of obedience?
"Before the experiments, I sought predictions about the outcome from various kinds of people - psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle-class adults, graduate students and faculty in the
behavioral sciences. With remarkable similarity, they predicted that virtually all the subjects
would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrist, specifically, predicted that most
subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the victim makes his first explicit demand to be
freed. They expected that only 4 percent would reach 300 volts, and that only a pathological
fringe of about one in a thousand would administer the highest shock on the board".
(Milgram, 1974)
Why were these people so wrong in their predictions?
Tendency to minimize the role of situational forces in influencing human
behavior --“It is surprising how difficult it is for people to keep situational forces in mind, as they seek a
totally personalistic interpretation of obedience, divorced from the specific situational
pressures acting on the individual” (Milgram, 1974). …The social psychology of this century
reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of
situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act. (Milgram, 1974)
Some Relevant Quotes
“Any interpretation involving the attacker’s strong sadistic impulses is inadequate. There is
no evidence that the majority of those who participated in such killings is sadistically inclined”
(Kelman, & Hamilton, 1989, p.13, regarding the My Lai massacre)
After witnessing hundreds of ordinary persons submit to authority in our own experiments, I
must conclude that Arendt’s conception of evil comes closer to the truth than one might dare
imagine (Milgram, 1967). [In 1963, Arendt wrote about Eichmann in “Jerusalem: A Report on
the Banality of Evil.” She said, “The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were
like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are,
terrible and terrifyingly normal”]
Methodological Weaknesses of Milgram’s Initial
Obedience Study?
• No manipulated variables
• No control condition
• No theoretically derived hypotheses
• No specific predictions [Paper rejected twice; JPSP and Journal of Personality]
The 4 Prods
EXPERIMENT #
VARIATION
RESULTS
1 thru 4
Proximity
1st Study = 65%
Closer to victim - Less
obedience
5
Heart Problem
65% Obedience
7
Closeness of authority (orders
given over the phone)
22% Obedience*
8
Females as subjects
65% Obedience (less
predicted)
10
Downtown site
48% Obedience*
13
Ordinary person issues commands
(experimenter had to leave)
20% Obedience (4/20 )
13a
Accomplice assumes role of
shocker; subject as "bystander"
69% allowed obedience
17
2 peers (one administrator, one
recordkeeper); Subject as shocker
One peer rebels (at 150 level)
10% Obedience
“When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his
position from others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest
bulwark we have against the excesses of authority.” --- (Milgram, 1974)
18
2 peers (one administrator, one
recordkeeper); Subject as shocker
Both peers keep obeying
93% Obedience
Some Questions About the Meaning of Milgram’s Findings
Why did the participants in Milgram’s study shock the victim at such high levels?
Some Key Factors
•
Time constraints
•
No communication/Limited information
•
Step by step increases in shock levels (gradual nature)
•
Legitimate Authority/State of “agency” (others are responsible)
Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the
control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the
situation, into performing harsh acts. …A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do,
irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that
the command comes from a legitimate authority (Milgram, 1965).
Describe the recruitment procedure used by Burger (2009)
Recruited via newspaper and online service
Promised $50.00 for participating!
Prescreening --1st Phase:
30%
• More that 2 psychology courses
rejected
• Responses to 6 questions (e.g., “... Been diagnosed with psychiatric
disorder; currently receiving psychotherapy; medical conditions affected
by stress”)
2nd Phase:
38%
rejected • Given series of psychological tests (e.g., Beck Anxiety and Depression
scales) and interview by clinical psychologist
Describe the study procedure used by Burger (2009)
• Generally, the same as Milgram (e.g., confederate learner, “random” assignment
to conditions, word-pair test, confederate with heart condition, volts ranged from
15-450 volts)
• Told 3 times they could withdraw at any time (twice in writing) with $$
• Sample shock was 15 volts not 45
• Use of 4 prods when reluctance occurred
• Stopped at 150 volts (79% of Milgram’s participants who reached this level
went to the end)
• Debriefing done immediately after study ended
• Use of a modeled-refusal condition (confederate stops at 90 volts after use of
• prod)
(Burger, 2009) What % of people obeyed to the 150 shock level?
What was the effect of having someone disobey (a model)?
(Burger, 2009) What role did gender play in obedience rates?
What effect did personality scores have on obedience?
Questions (cont.)
Can Milgram’s findings be generalized to other real-life
examples of obedience (e.g., Nazi Germany, Mai Lai incident in
Vietnam, Kosovo)?
Did Milgram’s participants knowingly and voluntarily harm
the learner?
Evidence for Destructive Obedience?
What was the mind set of the subjects (‘teachers”)?
How did they interpret the situation?
• Many cues (what subjects were told, background information) that the
learner was not going to be significantly (permanently) harmed
• Administration of pain was believed as important in this context (e.g.,
for the good of science)
• Role of conflicting cues (danger label on the shock generator, behavior
of the learner versus reactions of the experimenter)
• Continued presence of the experimenter
Issues Regarding Milgram’s Findings
In Milgrams’s studies the experimenter possessed both expert and
legitimate power
Experimenter directed and legitimized the
actions of “teacher”
Signals arise that causes teacher to
question the study (e.g., the learner may
being harmed)
Natural to look to the experimenter to
resolve the situation
Experimenter says
to continue giving
shocks
When participants get close to the “danger” shock levels, the learner
protests of pain and asks for the study to stop
What question(s) now confronts the participant?
Has this crossed the line? Am I now causing real harm to the other
person?
From Milgram (1974. p. 23): “at this juncture, it was found,
subjects would usually turn to the experimenter for guidance.”
The statements by the experimenter maintained the perspective that
no harm was being inflicted upon the learner (e.g., no permanent
damage was being done). According to the experimenter, it was
SAFE to continue
Participants Questioned Experimenters About Possible Harm
and Responsibility for Any Harm
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Experimenter: As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, butTeacher: But he’s hollering. He can’t stand it. What’s going to happen to
him?
Experimenter (his voice patient, matter-of-fact): The experiment requires
that you continue, Teacher.
Teacher: Aaah, but, unh, I’m not going to get that man sick in there … know
what I mean?
Experimenter: Whether the learner likes it or not, we must go on, through all
the word pairs.
Teacher: I refuse to take responsibility. He’s in there hollering!
Experimenter: It’s absolutely essential that you continue, Teacher.
Teacher (indicating the unused questions): There’s too many left here, I
mean, geez, if he gets them wrong, there’s too many of them left. I mean who’s
going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?
Experimenter: I’m responsible for anything that happens to him.
Continue please.
... it is possible that the participants committed a morally questionable action,
but did not knowingly and voluntarily harm an innocent individual (adapted
from Darley, 1995)
A Perspective of Principal-Agent Relationships
Which one reflects the one in Milgram’s obedience studies?
Master-Servant
relationship (Master
specifies the means and
actions of the servant;
Master generally
assumes responsibility
for servant’s behavior)
Principle-Independent
Contractor relationship
(Principle specifies the
goals to be accomplished
and the contractor
decides how to get them
done)
Taxonomy of Principle-Agent Relationships
Surveillance
Means-Ends
High
Low
Goals Specified
Independent
contractor with
possibility of
consultation
Independent
contractor determines
own actions
Actions specified
Master-servant
relationship; Master
determines actions
Master-servant
relationship; Servant
has action discretion
Milgram
condition
Obedience as an an Evolutionary/Developmental Learning Process
(From Darley, 1995)
Does Milgram’s research illustrate the beginning of a developmental
process for obedience to occur?
If sanctioned by outside (organizational) forces, people may
independently, calmly, and willing do what they were initially
reluctant to do (Darley, 1995)
A general example:
• Agent does not obey or alters a procedure to be less “effective”
• Authority figure rejects the actions of the agent
• Crisis point (exit or remain in the system)
• If one stays, more likely to obey in the future (evil-doing can be learned)
Evolution of Evil
The conversion process: “Over time, and in conditions conductive to such
transformations, good people can become truly evil ---- dispositionally and morally
evil” (Darley 1992)
Rosenblatt (1994): “None of these executives think of themselves as morally
bankrupt, and I do not think of then individually in that way, either. What often
happens to people who work for a large, immensely successful company, however, is
that they tend to adopt the values of the company, regardless of its product.
Loyalty supersedes objectivity ….. How good, smart, decent individuals manage to
contribute to a wicked enterprise is a question that has has been applied to
numerous governments as well as to industries ….. In speaking with these Philip
Morris executives, I felt the presence of the company with in the person. In
the end, I felt that I was speaking with more company that person, or
perhaps to a person who could no longer distinguish between the two. In this
situation, in which the company has effectively absorbed its employees in its moral
universe, the more responsible employees are the company and thus are to blame.”
Arendt (1963): “Great evil rises out of ordinary psychological processes that
evolve, usually with a progression along the continuum of destruction”
Key Elements for Ongoing Obedience (from Milgram)
1) Binding forces that accrue by the escalating features
of the actions themselves
2) Tendency for individuals to develop self-justifying
rationalizations for their destructive obedience
Important Overall Impact of Milgram’s Obedience Research --The need to investigate the situation closely, especially the subjective
perspective of the participant, especially when the behavior to be
explained appears to be inexplicable