The Nature of Obedience Why do we obey? Why, sometimes, do we choose not to?

Stanley Milgram’s study of Obedience • Result of a fascination with the phenomenon of concentration camps and the atrocities committed therein • Wanted to see how far the average person would go when asked to inflict pain on another, by an ‘authority figure’

Milgram’s experiment: the basics Milgram thought that: “Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living….” Some of the 53000 participants in a Nazi rally, Nuremberg 1937

Milgram’s experiment: the procedure: • Set up as if to study the effects of punishment on learning • The ‘learner’ was to receive electric shocks for every question he got wrong • The ‘teacher’ gave them

Milgram’s experiment: The Learner: • The ‘learner’ was a 47 year old likable actor (this was not known to the subjects) • The ‘shocks’(they were not real) were given in 15 volt intervals up to 450 volts (enough to kill!) • Each time the learner made a mistake he was given a more powerful shock

• 1. 2. 3. 4.

The learner began to protest as the shocks got more severe . This happened in stages: Up to 180 volts he made noises At 180 volts he shouted that he could bear the pain no longer At 300 volts he screamed and complained his heart was troubling him At 315 volts he refused to continue, after which he made no other sound no matter how many volts were given

Milgram’s experiment: The ‘teachers’: • Originally these were 40 males between 20 and 50 from a range of occupations • They were paid $4.50 for turning up • They often found the procedure stressful – most protested and wanted to stop. If they hesitated the experimenter gave one of 4 standard ‘prods’ to encourage them to continue

• These were: 1. “Please continue or please go on” 2. “The experiment requires that you continue” 3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue” 4. “You have no other choice, you must go on”

The findings…. • Milgram found that 65% (two thirds) of the ‘teachers’ delivered the maximum 450 volts – enough to kill! • He also found that 100% (all) delivered at least 300 volts!

Milgram’s conclusions …. • 1. 2. 3.

He concluded that obedience is due to 4 things: The “situational setting” (where it takes place) The status of the experimenter (their ‘power’) The ‘pressure’ they were able to place on the individual 4. People should be aware of the dangers of blind obedience • He did not believe that the obedience shown in concentration camps was due to “deviant personalities”

Milgram’s variations.. To test his theory, Milgram carried out a number of ‘variations

Increasing the distance between the teacher and the experimenter Description: The orders were given by telephone, rather than face to face. • 20.5% obeyed

Remote Feedback Description: Where victim was not seen or heard • 66% obeyed:

Proximity Description Where victim was only one metre away from the teacher • 40% 0beyed

Touch proximity Description: Where the victim was only one metre away from the teacher and had their hand forced onto the shockplate • 30% obeyed

Reducing the authority of the experimenter Description: Where the experimenter was not a scientist, but a member of the public. • 20% obeyed

Making the location less credible: Description: Where the experiment was carried out in a seedy, run-down office, rather than a prestigious University. • 48% obeyed

Refusal to conform Description: Where another confederate (teacher) refused to give shocks • 10% obeyed

Other studies in support.. • Milgram’s theory was carefully reviewed and tested by others, who found similar results. • These studies were conducted in ‘real’ environments, so the would have more “External (Ecological) Validity”

Hofling (1966) • He conducted a study where nurses were instructed by a ‘Dr. Smith’ to give a patient 20 mg of Astroten (above the maximum) • Although no written authority was received, and despite the fact that the nurses did not know if Dr. Smith was a real doctor, 21 of the 22 nurses obeyed.

Evaluation of Hofling

In support: • Raises important questions about the ways hospitals are run (nature of authority) • The study has external (ecological) validity

Problems: • • • •

Does not follow ethical guidelines Nurses were deceived There was no informed consent Nurses did not have the right to withdraw

Bickman(1974) • Explored the role of uniforms when the public were asked to perform tasks (pick up a bag, stand on the other side of a bus stop etc) • Obedience rates differed with different uniforms. More obedience when dressed as a guard, rather than a milkman etc.

Evaluation of Bickman

In support: • Has external (ecological) validity

Problems: • Participants were deceived • There was no informed consent

*How ‘good’ were these experiments? And are the results “valid” ?

* Just read….don’t write on blank: Evaluating Milgram (overall) •

Milgram’s study can be criticised on a number of fronts: 1. How ‘Valid’ the methods were that he used 2. How the findings would transfer to real life 3. How ethical it was to put subjects through this ordeal

VALIDITY : Orne and Holland (1968) Criticised Milgram’s study on two levels: 1. Lack of internal validity - because of the situation, participants would know this was an official experiment and that no one would really be hurt. So, as an experiment, did it prove what Milgram said it did? • BUT Milgram challenged this – he said that the participants DID believe it which WOULD make it valid!

2. External validity – to what extent can the results be ‘generalised’ to real life. Because it happened in a lab, would it happen in the street? • Hofling’s nurse study WOULD suggest that it would generalise • BUT Rank and Jacobson (75) – asked nurses to carry out an irregular order but 16/18 REFUSED • This is because a) the drug was familiar to them – Valium -AND they were allowed to consult with peers • I.e. it is THIS study which is even MORE realistic and disagrees with Milgram’s findings

3. The obedience alibi Mandel (98) suggests that Milgram’s research is NOT supported by real life events Proximity of the victim • When Major Wilhelm Trapp (Jozefow mass killing of Jews)gave orders to kill Jews by shooting them only a small minority took up the offer to be assigned other duties if they felt uncomfortable • This is despite the fact that they were in close proximity to the victims

Proximity of authority figure • At the Jezefow massacre – most of the killers were ALONE with the victims • I.e. NOT in presence of their superiors but they still went through with it Victim’s suffering • In Jezefow they seemed to “enjoy” the opportunity to exert power • In Milgram’s the overwhelming majority were extremely uncomfortable with it.

Ethical Issues in Obedience Research • One major critic of Milgram was Baumrind (1964) who believed that Milgram’s approach was unethical • BUT Zimbardo claims that it is WHAT Milgram discovered that has lead to hostility of his research NOT HOW he discovered it.

Participants should not be deceived:

Milgram’s reply Baumrind’s concerns • Without the deception • Participants were the study couldn't have deceived on two taken place and it did counts. reveal really surprising 1. They were told the results study was on the • Participants were effects of punishment debriefed and 84% 2. They believed they said they were glad were giving real they had taken part electric shocks • 74% said they had learned something

Participants should give informed consent: Baumrind’s concerns • Participants hadn't given their consent to take part in a study on obedience

Milgram’s reply • Whilst this was the case, other writers such as Rosnow argued that the study helped people review their value systems and made them aware of the dangers of obedience

Participants should be allowed to withdraw from the study: Baumrind’s concerns • The “prods” from the experimenter made them feel they had no choice and could not leave

Milgram’s reply • By persuading participants to remain, he was demonstrating the power of the scientific establishment and authority figures and he argued that they were not physically detained and some did actually leave

Participants should be protected from psychological harm: Milgram’s reply Baumrind’s concerns • The participants were fully • Participants debriefed and a psychiatric experienced a lack of examination one year after self esteem, dignity the study revealed no sign and trust in Authority of psychological damage and it was a stressful • They were only involved in experience for some “momentary excitement” like a horror film

• Darley (92) –administering of shocks in Milgram’s experiment may activate a dormant aspect of the personality • Ie would feel more able and more motivated to repeat the actions • Supported by Lifton (86) –physicians in the Nazi death camps started out as ordinary people but became killing machines • I.e. their personalities had altered as a consequence of the activities they were asked to perform