In the early 1960s Stanley Milgram began an
experiment that would change the way that people viewed obedience to authority.
When most people are asked if they would harm a person if ordered to by an
authority they respond with a strong no. The experiment done by Milgram set to
answer this question in order to better understand how authority and influence
the obedience of those under command. This paper is going to look at the
Milgram research and experiment on obedience taking a look at the situational
variables that make obedience to authority more likely. The paper is going to
present a summary of the study, how it was conducted, an explanation of the
results, an explanation of the concept of situationism as it applies to the
study, and answer some questions such as if the results would differ given
different cultures or ethnic groups used as participants in the study.
Summary of Study
In the early 1960s Milgram after hearing
about the WWII trial of Adolph Eichmann who testified that he was just
following orders when he helped to kill millions of Jews, became interested in
the idea of following orders of authority (Elms, 2009). Milgram wanted to see
how far people would go if ordered by an authority figure and designed an
experiment in order to do that. Milgram recruited 40 men through newspaper ads
and offered to pay them in exchange for their participation. Milgram’s
experiment involved the participants being placed in the role of a teacher who
asked questions of a student in another room that they couldn’t see; if the
student got the question wrong the teacher was to give the student a shock of
varying degrees ranging from 30 volts and increase 15 volts each time the
student got a question wrong (Elms, 2009).
In the experiment the participant believed
they were delivering a shock to a real person, but in reality the student was
part of the experiment and only pretending to be shocked. As the teacher began
delivering shocks for wrong answers the student would begin to please to stop.
As the teacher reached 300 volts the student would bang on the wall, demand to
be released, and would begin to refuse to answer questions (Elms, 2009). At this
point teachers would be instructed that silence was to be treated as an
incorrect response and to shock the student again; the teacher would receive a
series of commands to keep them going in the experiment.
Results and Situationism
After the experiment was completed Milgram
surveyed a group of Yale students to find out the thoughts people would have on
how far individuals would go to obey authority. The level of the shock that participants in the experiment
were willing to give to students was what was used in order to measure
obedience. The surveyed students
predicted that only three percent of the participants would have delivered the
maximum shock that was allowed in the study, listed only as XXX. According to Milgram’s results however,
65% of the teachers in the study delivered the maximum shock to students
(Milgram, 1973). The results showed that even though participants may have been
distraught, in an agitated state, or angry at having to deliver shocks to
individuals they believed they were hurting the participants continued on
obeying the orders that were given to them.
The concept of situationism is basically a
theory that the behavior of humans is determined by the surroundings
circumstances of individuals rather than by personal qualities of the person
(Fiske, 2010). In the experiment conducted Milgram concluded that there were a
number of situational factors which could account for the higher levels of
obedience in individuals. For
instance, having the authority figure be physically present increased
compliance to obey, having the experiment sponsored by a trusted academic
institution like Yale led participants to think it must be safe, the selection
to the teacher or student position seemed random, participants assumed the
experimenter was a competent expert, and finally the shocks delivered were
painful but not dangerous to the student (Milgram, 1973).
Conducting similar studies in which a
rebellious peer was present showed that obedience levels were dramatically
reduced and individuals refused orders to continue shocking students or to
deliver a maximum shock to the student. In this Milgram (1973), found that situational circumstances
greatly affected people’s behaviors in the experiment and he concluded that “when the destructive effects of their work become
patently clear, and individuals are asked to carry out actions incompatible
with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the
resources needed to resist authority" (p. 77). The results of the
experiment as well as the further experiments that were conducted show that
there is great influence on situational circumstances. These situation circumstances impact a
person’s behavior causing them to act out of character in response to an
authority figure and make cause the individuals to become agents of a
destructive process despite not wanting to be.
Additional Questions
In whether or not the study results would
have been different if the participants were of a different culture, ethnic, or
gender group the author believes that the results probably would have been the
same. If Milgram had used women
instead of men he may have seen an increase in discomfort from individuals as
the shocks increased and students protested more. However, the results of the individual continuing the shocks
or being influenced by the presence of a rebellious peer would most likely
remain unchanged. This would also
most likely be the same given different cultures or ethnic groups.
For the question of if the results of the
study are important and relevant to contemporary society the results are. Jerry Burger, a psychology at Santa
Clara University, recreated the experiment in order to determine if the results
would be the same as they were in the original experiment. Burger (2009), concluded that in the
new experiment individuals obeyed at the same rate as they had nearly 40 years
prior in the original experiment.
The results of the study are important in both cases as it shows the
impact of the circumstances on how people behave and obey authority
figures. It applies to today’s
society because as Milgram stated though individuals may not agree with the
course of actions being taken they are ill equipped to resist authority and
will instead obey it.
Conclusion
In the early 1960s Stanley Milgram began an
experiment that would change the way that people viewed obedience to authority.
The experiment done by Milgram set to better understand how authority and
influence the obedience of those under command. Milgram wanted to see how far
people would go if ordered by an authority figure and designed an experiment in
order to do that. The results of the study showed that even though participants
may have been distraught, in an agitated state, or angry at having to deliver
shocks to individuals they believed they were hurting the participants
continued on obeying the orders that were given to them. In the experiment
conducted Milgram concluded that there were a number of situational factors
which could account for the higher levels of obedience in individuals. These situation
circumstances impact a person’s behavior causing them to act out of character
in response to an authority figure and make cause the individuals to become
agents of a destructive process despite not wanting to be. The results of the study are important in both cases as it shows
the impact of the circumstances on how people behave and obey authority
figures. It applies to today’s
society because as Milgram stated though individuals may not agree with the
course of actions being taken they are ill equipped to resist authority and
will instead obey it.
References
Fiske, S. T.
(2010). Social beings: Core motives in
social psychology (2nd ed.). Danvers, MA: Wiley.
No comments:
Post a Comment