Milgram’s Obedience To Authority Experiment
Introduction
In the early 1960s at Yale University, social psychologist Stanly Milgram devised one of the most controversial yet insightful studies of human behavior.
The nature of the experiment was to estimate the extent and conditions under which obedience to authority triumphed over reason and personal beliefs.
Milgram attempted to address the questions about human nature, which makes individuals susceptible to carrying out inhumane acts against others, unrestrained by a personal moral compass.
The experimentation demonstrated the power of SOCIAL INFLUENCES involving CONFORMITY, which makes ordinary individuals prone to depraved and callous behaviors.
These behaviors can be manifested at an alarming rate if suitable DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS are placed into the milieu.
Motivated by the atrocities committed during World War II, Milgram’s infamous study became a “window into human cruelty.”
Milgram examined justifications for inhumane acts offered by the defendants at Nuremberg. Their defense was simple; they persisted that their actions were based on military duty, which dictates obedience to authority.
Milgram’s original experiment, and later REPLICATIONS and variations of his primary model, established two critical factors.
First, it showed that social influences usually triumph against INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES; and second, it painted a vivid portrait of the ‘power of situation’ since the level of obedience increased and decreased depending on the circumstances.
Social Psychology Perspective
From a social psychological perspective, arguably the chief contributing factors to the outcome of Milgram’s original study were the presence and the persistence of a recognized authority (i.e., a scientist in a white lab coat) urging the subjects to action.
This phenomenon is not surprising, considering obedience to authority is embedded in the SOCIAL NORMS of Western culture.
From an early age, children are taught to surrender to the will of authority figures (e.g., parents, teachers, etc.). The subjects were predisposed to comply and felt a sense of duty.
It is not unreasonable to assume that some of the subjects also felt that it was their civic duty to carry through with the experiment despite personal disagreement.
People generally revere and trust western science, compelling them to perform their part to advance scientific interests. Furthermore, the experiment was conducted at Yale University’s impressive interaction laboratory.
This prestigious setting within a renowned and respected academic institution further validated the methods employed.
Deception & Psychological Realism
DECEPTION was involved in increasing the PSYCHOLOGICAL REALISM of the experiment.
In addition, the subjects received 45-volt shock simulations to give them an idea about the levels of pain they would be inflicting upon the ‘learner.’
In the original study, 2/3 of the subjects were willing to administer a lethal shock to the learner in the direction of the authority figure.
The experiment’s EXTERNAL VALIDITY has been tested through several replications by Milgram and other social psychologists.
Furthermore, Milgram conducted several variations of his basic experimental model. He changed the INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (some aspect of the situation) to determine how it influenced the level of obedience (DV).
Study Variations
The variations of the original Milgram study revealed another critical factor: the distance between the learner and the subject profoundly affects the levels of compliance.
The willingness of the study subjects to carry on with the experiment was notably reduced, as the learner was made “more immediate to the subject” (e.g., the learner was in the same room as the subject).
In a series of experiments, the level of proximity and degree of surveillance varied between the experimenter and the subject.
When the experimenter was not physically present in the laboratory (e.g., gave instructions over the phone), the degree of obedience was significantly reduced.
On average, the number of subjects willing to administer a lethal shock to the learner was three times as high when the experimenter was physically present, as opposed to when they were absent from the room.
Milgram was intrigued by the psychological process that resulted in group settings in relation to obedience to authority.
Subsequent studies revealed that group solidarity also plays a decisive role in the level of compliance.
In studies where the subjects were placed in a cohesive group, obedience levels were high. Similarly, when subjects were introduced to experimental conditions, the obedience rate to authority figures was substantially lower.
Cognitive Dissonance
One of the focal points of Milgram’s original study was directed at the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE experienced by the subjects.
The experiments provided significant insight into how individuals go about reducing dissonance.
Almost all subjects that saw the experiment to its end resolved the conflict between personal beliefs and behavior by “deferring” to the experimenter.
This defense mechanism echoes the connotation of DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY (i.e., accountability rests not with the subject but those in charge of the experiment).
During the post-interviews, the subjects cited EXTERNAL JUSTIFICATIONS for their actions.
They suggested that they wanted to stop (i.e., I’m a good person) but went along because they were told by the person in charge to carry on.
By deflecting the blame away from themselves, the subjects preserved their positive SELF-ESTEEM.
When analyzing the subjects’ behavior, individuals usually made INTERNAL ATTRIBUTIONS for their callous actions.
This form of attribution is frequent in Western ANALYTIC cultures where FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERRORS are more common than in Collectivist societies (e.g., Japan).
Important Lesson From The Study
According to Milgram, the crucial lesson from the experiments is that human nature can not be relied upon to “insulate men from brutality and inhumane treatment, at the direction of malevolence authority.”
Milgram argued that even when people are conscious of their unethical behavior and their actions run contrary to their moral standards, they usually lack the necessary social and personal faculties to oppose authority.
Consequently, when individuals perform dissident actions towards a positive self-image, they justify their behaviors by deflecting the blame from themselves.
Conclusion
The Milgram experiments provide a prevailing and troubling glimpse into the dangers of blind obedience to authority.
It demonstrated how ordinary individuals would usually submit to obedience devoid of ethical boundaries as long as they recognize that they are following orders of accepted authority.
The studies further revealed that roots of malicious behavior do not usually stem from individual differences but more often are manifested according to the social situation (e.g., dictates of ruthless authority).
The presumption of unaccountability (e.g., performing one’s duty), provides ample justification for acts of brutality.
.
Free Meditation eBook
