Transcript EXPERIMENT # VARIATION RESULTS 1 thru 4 Proximity 1st Study = 65% Closer to victim - Less obedience Heart Problem 65% Obedience Closeness of authority (orders given over the phone) 22% Obedience* Females.

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
Predictions:
"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 ---
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).
“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)
“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 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”]
Did Milgram’s Participants Shock Others Out of a Sense of
Obligation? (i.e., Lutsky article)
Obedience is a behavior NOT an explanation for the behavior
From Luksky (1995): Obedience has been used as a description of behavior
in the Milgram experiment and as an explanation for that behavior
From Milgram 1965, p. 58): “to obey and to disobey, as used here, refer to the
subject’s overt action only, and carry no implication for the motive or
experiential states accompanying the action.”
Obligation Process (not present in the Milgram studies)
1) Lengthy period of socialization to clearly defined roles
2) Exposure to well-established patterns of behavior
3) On-going displays of institutional legitimacy (and possible use of reward
and coercive power)
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
•
Step by step increases in shock levels
•
State of “agency” (others are responsible)
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
• 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.
As before, is 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 (cont.)
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, wither. 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