Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View

[Turtle]

The title of this thread is the title of Stanley Milgram's seminal work which I have frequently referenced in other topics here. I have fished out a review of the book I wrote decades ago and I am in the process of typing it into a Wordpad file and for posting as a preface to this thread. I understand that there is a black market for this kind of material in institutions of higher learning, and I hesitated to publisize it for that very reason. Nonetheless, the topic is important in my view and so I'll append a curse of a week's itching to any and all who copy it & pass it off as their own. Behave! ;)

 

Book Review

 

1. Citation

a. Obedience

b.Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View

c. Stanley Milgram

d. Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.

e. 1974

f. Preface: 3 pages

Acknowledgements: 2 pages

Main Body of Text: 189 pages

Appendices: 13 pages

Notes: 7 pages

References: 6 pages

Index: 6 pages

 

2. Statment of Author's Qualifications for Writing on the Subject

Mr. Milgram received his B.A. in political science from Queens University of the City University of New York in 1954. He changed his major to social psychology for his graduate work because he felt that sociological questions concerning behavior could be answerer scientifically. His dissertation, "Conformity in Norway and France", earned him his doctorate from Harvard in 1960. Mr. Milgram served as assistant professor of psychology at Yale University from 1960-1963, where he conducted the experiments detailed in this book. He has researched and written about crowd behavior, the effects of TV violence on viewers, conformity, and the experience of urban life.

 

3. Statement of Author's Intended Purpose or Objectives.

The author designed a set of experiments that would lead him to a better understanding of peoples' obedience to authority in the absence of compulsion, that is,the threat of force or punishment. His intention was to determine through experiment, how far a person will go in hurting another person when directed to do so by a perceived authoreity figure.

 

4. Summary

The book outlines the results of eighteen different experiments, all variations of a basic setup as follows. Subjects were recruited on the pretense of participating in a scientific study dealing with the correlation between punishment and learning. Through a rigged drawing, the subjects were designated the teacher and seated before an elaborate panel of switches, lights, and meters. They were instructed by an experimenter (the recognized authority figure), to read a series of word pairs to the learner and then to test the learner's memory of the pairs. When an incorrect answer was given, the teacher was to administer shocks of increasing voltage, beginning at 15 volts and rising to 450 volts in 15 volt increments. Several aspects to the experiments should be noted: 1) Al participants were part of the research team except for the subject designated the teacher. 2) The voltage labels on the switches were augmented by word labels identifying the level of shock, .e.g 'Moderate Shock', 'Extreme Shock', 'Danger: Severe Shock'. 3) Other than an initial 45 volt shock administered to the teacher to strengthen their belief in the authenticity of the generator, no shocks were actually given.

 

The results of the experiments were not at all what Mr. Milgram had anticipated - he described them as "both surprising and dismaying"- nor did they conform to the expectations of surveys of several groups who predicted that no one would obey the experimenter. Several adjustments had to be made in the experiment to offset the unexpected results. Virtually all subjects continued to administer the highest shock level in the initial experiment, so that in all subsequent experiments a tape recording was played that corresponded to the various voltages. The tape consisted of verbal responses attributed to the learner and ranging from a small grunt to agonized screams.

 

Various aspects of the experiment were modified, such as the gender of the subject, proximity of the victim (learner), change in personnel, proximity and number of authority figures, and influennce of peers on the subject, in order to get a better understanding of the factors responsible for the subjects obedience to authority.

 

Mr. Milgram's analysis of the results suggest that several factors are of prime importance in explaining the behavior of the subjects: 1) Inborn structures reflecting hierarchical levels found throughout Nature, establish the potential for obedience. 2) Social influences like family, institutional systems of authority, and the internalization of social norms establish in people the concept of who represents an authority figure and what the appropriate responses are when confronted by such a figure. In short, despite severe distress exhibited by subjects because of their personal moral beliefs, the deeply ingrained ideas of who reperesents authority and how they should be reacted to were powerful enough to override most urges to disobey.

 

5. Statement of the Objectives that the Author Achieved

The author successfully demonstrated how far people will go in hurting someone when directed to do so by a perceived authority figure. The relatively large number of variations of the experiment helped to clarify just what conditions carried the most influence for affecting peoples obedience to authority.

 

Fini :hyper:

[Turtle]

OK. From here on out it's all open to discussion. In typing the review in and rereading it I give myself a C for the writing. :smart: Enough passive structures in there to choke an equine. :) What's an editor to do‽

 

I see I left quite a few pertinent details out, but I did not recall Milgram's comments on the role of brain structure. :bounce:Tan mieux because that is one avenue I tend to stroll down. Another way I have in mind to expand on Milgram's study is to expand the library of 'authority figures' to include other authoritive symbology such as books, age, ideals, morals, dress,... subtle signs of all ilk & manner such as get us to obey.

 

Discuss,;)

:hyper:

[TheFaithfulStone]

In a distinct, but related, experiment we learned that we adapt to the roles we are given to play.

 

Distributed responsibility is a bad thing - but how would we live without it.

 

Anytime you get more than a dozen or so people together they will form a hierarchy. (This doesn't necessarily mean that there's an alpha dog, etc...) Everyone figures out what "role" they need to play and then plays it to the best of their abilities. We are social critters, and we like being parts of society. The nail that sticks out gets hammered, so we try not to.

 

I don't think this is a priori a bad thing. I'm not sure how you could have a functioning society WITHOUT this kind of behavior - but it has I think, an unfortunate side effect - which is obedience to the leader. Some people, unintentionally or not, "grab hold" of this group dynamic and then can get the group to do - basically whatever they want. If the group is already established - so much the better.

 

That's how things like the Nazi party happen. No body is really responsible. No body wants to be the one who says "enough." And nobody but a few people are really 'true believers.'

 

If you want to be more inflammatory, that's how things like Christianity happen. Nobody want to go - "Umm... But I kinda enjoy doin' it." Nobody really buys it all. There are only a few true blue believers, but the group dynamic is such that everyone is convinced that everybody BUT themselves is just such a true believer, and that their doubts make them a standout and not a member of the majority.

 

For a demonstration of this principle in action, witness the Iraq vote four years ago, where everybody was afraid of being seen as "soft on terrorism" and witness the debate now where everybody is afraid of being seen as "soft on Bush."

 

There is no idea so bad you can't convince at least one other person that it's a good idea. With each person that you convince, you have to convince the next person less completely, until eventually, you have an army of people who don't really agree with you, but will fight to the death for whatever stupid cause you think they should.

 

How do you think the Army works?

 

TFS

[Turtle]

In a distinct, but related, experiment we learned that we adapt to the roles we are given to play.

 

Reading that link I see the primary investigator was a high-school friend of Milgram's. I mentioned leaving out details and one is that Milgram's study was carried out in 1961 but he didn't publish it untill 1974. He was in part looking for answers to the Nazi's success in getting so many to obey when he designed the experiment, and then in 1968 the My Lai masacre happened in Vietnam. As I understand it, Milgram needed coaxing to publish the experiment at all, so disturbing did he find the results.

 

If you want to be more inflammatory, that's how things like Christianity happen. Nobody want to go - "Umm... But I kinda enjoy doin' it." Nobody really buys it all. There are only a few true blue believers, but the group dynamic is such that everyone is convinced that everybody BUT themselves is just such a true believer, and that their doubts make them a standout and not a member of the majority. ... TFS

 

I think perceptions of authority is how things like religion perpetuate & we are going there too. A spade is a spade and we will dig in every corner. I think the group dynamic as you describe it is not in line with Milgram's results however, i.e. the subjects in the experiment never met or participated with other subjects as a group.

 

Many of the subjects who proclaimed high moral beliefs in pre-experiment interviews and later went right ahead shocking all the way up to 450 volts, required debriefing and ongoing therapy after the fact. The validity of the experimenter's authority was conveyed by a lab setting, wearing white lab coats, and carrying clip boards. That's all it took. So again I want to emphasize my idea that it is as much the objects and their connotations as it is the people.

 

This article is worth reposting as it pertains to the hardwiring aspect I plan to further explore. >> The Subconcious Brain - Who's Minding the Mind? - New York Times

...New studies have found that people tidy up more thoroughly when there’s a faint tang of cleaning liquid in the air; they become more competitive if there’s a briefcase in sight, or more cooperative if they glimpse words like “dependable” and “support” — all without being aware of the change, or what prompted it.

 

Psychologists say that “priming” people in this way is not some form of hypnotism, or even subliminal seduction; rather, it’s a demonstration of how everyday sights, smells and sounds can selectively activate goals or motives that people already have. ...

 

Good stuff Maynard. :eek:

:eek2:

[Erasmus00]

I think its worth mentioning that (according to David Meyer's intro psych book) the group of people in Milgram's experiment who consistently refused to deliver the high voltage shocks were electrical engineers/electrical workers. I think this demonstrates that part of the reason the experiment works is that subjects manage to convince themselves they aren't "really" hurting the other person.

 

Perhaps this demonstrates how blind obedience to authority can be especially dangerous when mixed with scientific ignorance (not understanding voltages).

-Will

[InfiniteNow]

Yes, most of the participants in the study indicated that they did not believe they were truly hurting others.

[Turtle]

The last post is factually mistaken and lacking support or reference. :eek:

[InfiniteNow]

The last post is factually mistaken and lacking support or reference. :eek:

 

Lol... Any college level Psych 101 student knows that when they go into an experiment that there are controls in place, and any interpreter of the study data recognizes the same.

 

Using confederates in a study setup is invariably a way to introduce uncontrollable factors, and my proposition is that the participants of the study (aka subjects) knew on an inherent level that what they were doing had no impact. Their phsyiological symptoms were a result of their inborn and educated tendencies that, despite the limited reality of the situation, what they were doing was wrong.

 

I don't negate the importance of Milgram's work, but it's important to view it in proper context. Why did these folks do it anyway? That's the question. The study makes many important points about tendencies toward following blindly, and also raises questions about society at large.

 

However, most studied individuals on the topic acknowledge that these actions were engaged in by participants out of a sense of obligation, not any particularly aggressive tendecies.

 

See "Stanley Milgram: The Perils of Obedience."

[Turtle]

...The condition of the experiment undermines another commonly offered explanation of the subjects' behavior -- that those who shocked the victim at the most severe levels came only from the sadistic fringe of society. If one considers that almost two-thirds of the participants fall into the category of "obedient" subjects, and that they represented ordinary people drawn from working, managerial, and professional classes, the argument becomes very shaky. ...

The Perils of Obedience - Stanley Milgram

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, the group dynamic I was talking about is the one where the "doctor" has the role of authority, and the "not-doctor" has the role of doing what you're told.

 

That is, there is a group dynamic going on there - which is "You do what experts tell you to do, because you don't want to be the guy who goes against expert advice."

 

Good point about people being 'primed' to obey them though by the accouterments of authority - the lab coat, the setting etc. I imagine if you conducted this same experiment and the people DIDN'T have lab coats, etc, it wouldn't work nearly as well.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

Using confederates in a study setup is invariably a way to introduce uncontrollable factors, and my proposition is that the participants of the study (aka subjects) knew on an inherent level that what they were doing had no impact. Their phsyiological symptoms were a result of their inborn and educated tendencies that, despite the limited reality of the situation, what they were doing was wrong.

 

Are you confusing Stanford Prison and Milgram? The Milgram experiment did not use psychology students as test subjects, but just random people.

 

TFS

[Turtle]

I think its worth mentioning that (according to David Meyer's intro psych book) the group of people in Milgram's experiment who consistently refused to deliver the high voltage shocks were electrical engineers/electrical workers. I think this demonstrates that part of the reason the experiment works is that subjects manage to convince themselves they aren't "really" hurting the other person. ...

 

-Will

 

Interesting reference Will. Given the refusal of electrical workers, I draw a different conclusion than yours, that is, that these folks were convinced of the authenticity of the electrical panel, they believed they would really be shocking people, and they knew that 450 volts is enough to kill someone. Do you recall if the electrical workers outright refused to shock at all, or just refused to shock at high levels?

 

Perhaps this demonstrates how blind obedience to authority can be especially dangerous when mixed with scientific ignorance (not understanding voltages).

Yes, I think so. Moreover, it is a specific example of the general case I am trying to make; that people are predisposed by virtue of brain structure to accord authority and that education (non-ignorance?) can override the 'blind' aspect of obedience. :eek2:

[InfiniteNow]

Are you confusing Stanford Prison and Milgram? The Milgram experiment did not use psychology students as test subjects, but just random people.

 

TFS

No. Milgram it is, however, I do think there is some confusion here.

 

I was not suggesting that college students were the study participants, but that any college level psych student knows that there's an inherent "lack of realism" during most studies of this nature. I agree, Milgram recruited random folks, and I submit that they too knew they were in a study.

 

 

Milgram's Experiment on Obedience to Authority

 

Milgram recruited subjects for his experiments from various walks in life. Respondents were told the experiment would study the effects of punishment on learning ability. They were offered a token cash award for participating. Although respondents thought they had an equal chance of playing the role of a student or of a teacher, the process was rigged so all respondents ended up playing the teacher

 

 

Perhaps part of the issue is the use of the terms "Teacher" and "student" in the study roles. The "teacher" was the participant administering the shock, and the "student" was the actor pretending to be agonizing in pain. The reference to "confederate" referred to the "student" as played by the actor receiving the shock.

 

Does this address your concern, or did I perhaps misread your comment?

[Tormod]

...my proposition is that the participants of the study (aka subjects) knew on an inherent level that what they were doing had no impact.

 

So, you're saying that you don't believe the reports from the study, and therefore dismiss the results of the study. That's not the same as proving that the participants knew anything.

 

The page you linked to says:

 

Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student.

 

In my book that is the opposite of what you claim?

[Erasmus00]

Interesting reference Will. Given the refusal of electrical workers, I draw a different conclusion than yours, that is, that these folks were convinced of the authenticity of the electrical panel, they believed they would really be shocking people, and they knew that 450 volts is enough to kill someone. Do you recall if the electrical workers outright refused to shock at all, or just refused to shock at high levels?

 

Sorry for a miscommunication- I believe the non-electrical workers convinced themselves they weren't "really" hurting the other person. Cognitive dissonance, if you will "I'm a good person I wouldn't hurt someone. Therefore, this shock cannot be hurting them."

 

The electrical workers knew enough about electricity to avoid the self-deception.

 

As to the question of whether they refused to shock at all, I have no idea. Meyer's book just has one line saying the only group to consistently refuse were the electrical workers. Its in the middle of the section on the Milgram experiment.

-Will

[Turtle]

Sorry for a miscommunication- I believe the non-electrical workers convinced themselves they weren't "really" hurting the other person. Cognitive dissonance, if you will "I'm a good person I wouldn't hurt someone. Therefore, this shock cannot be hurting them."

 

The electrical workers knew enough about electricity to avoid the self-deception.

...

-Will

 

As Tormod notes in post #14 and quoting from the Berkley link, this is not the case.

Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student.

Immediately following those words at the link is a set of qualifications attributed to Milgram.

Milgram divided participants into three categories:

 

Obeyed but justified themselves. Some obedient participants gave up responsibility for their actions, blaming the experimenter. If anything had happened to the learner, they reasoned, it would have been the experimenter’s fault. Others had transferred the blame to the learner: "He was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to be shocked."

 

Obeyed but blamed themselves. Others felt badly about what they had done and were quite harsh on themselves. Members of this group would, perhaps, be more likely to challenge authority if confronted with a similar situation in the future.

 

Rebelled. Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they were accountable to a higher authority.

 

A couple of notes of clarification: Adding the commentary of other people on Milgram's experiments is useful if not de rigueur, however I am basing my primary understanding on the actual experiments as Milgram describes in his book. Giving too much credence to others' commentaries allows for mistakes and subjective additions or subtractions to creep in. For example the fella writing the Berkley article quoted says the "learner grunted" when in fact the sound effects were on tape.

 

Keep in mind that Milgram reports on 18 different variations of the experiment in the book, each meant to elucidate, expose, or eliminate potential bias, cause or explanation in the results. :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

I was not suggesting that college students were the study participants, but that any college level psych student knows that there's an inherent "lack of realism" during most studies of this nature. I agree, Milgram recruited random folks, and I submit that they too knew they were in a study.

 

Isn't this a bit like claiming false consciousness? That they really did, subconciously at some level know they were the ones being studied, and therefore were trying to please the studier?

 

I think that the results are even MORE disturbing then, since it means you don't even need authority to convince people to do awful things, just the ability to approve or disapprove.

 

TFS