Comparing Milgram's Experiments On Obedience And The Authority
Yierfan Abula
ENG 111 M&W
Professor Hoke
11/21/2014
Obedience and the Authority
If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people, I think, would answer this question with an absolute No. However, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of the obedience experiments during the 1960s demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.
Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths …show more content…
of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"
In the Milgram experiment the participants were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50. Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX." Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked. As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock. Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along: "Please continue."; "The experiment requires that you continue."; "It is absolutely essential that you continue."; "You have no other choice, you must go on." (Kendra Cherry)i
When Milgram predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock, however in the result, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks. Many critics suggested initially that the high obedience was due to the prestige of Yale University, and the participants'
presumed belief that no one at Yale would permit the actual harm of others (Baumrind 1964 and Orne 1962, as cited in Franzoi 300)ii. To examine this possibility, Milgram moved his experiment to a run-down site in Bridgeport, Connecticut, which had no obvious affiliations with Yale. Even though obedience decreased slightly, the difference was not significant: 48 percent of the participants delivered the maximum shock.
Is authority the only matter to people’s obedience? Were there any other reasons for it? To find out this, we have searched many other replication experiments, and did a comparison.
Here is a replication experiment was conducted by a German socialist, David Mark Mantell iii in West Germany in 1971. Using 101 men from the general population, this study divided participants into two groups. One is the same as Milgram’s, which took the experiment under the supervision of authority. This group, at last, reached to a baseline obedience level of 85%. The other one, a control group, which Milgram did not, where the participants could choose what level of electric shock to give (known as "self-decision condition"). At this condition Obedience was
0%.
Kilham and Mann, in 1974, did a replication of Milgram’s obedience experiment in Australia. In this research, both 63 male and 62 female, first year psychology students were used. This research added another level of chain of command compared to Milgram. The authority figure gave the command to another individual who passed it to the shock generator operator. In the "active obedience condition"(participants as execution) obedience was 28% overall (40% for males and
16% for females). In the control conditions, based on choice of level of shock and participant's responsibility for their actions, obedience was 0%. In the "passive obedience condition" (participant as the transmitter), where the participant was carrying the message to the shock generator operator, obedience was 54% (males 68%; females 40%), compared to 92.5% for Milgram.
The difference in results found in this experiment may be because of the different time of this research compared to Milgram's original experiment: A decade of campus unrest and anti-war demonstrations would have made some difference in student attitudes towards authority, whether governments, college administrators, or scientists (Kilham and Mann, 1974, p702)iv. And Foster (1997)v also argued that there are differences to Milgram in this research in age, education, and social class of the participants, and status of the experimenter.
Whether in this experiment or the former one they have one in very common, that is while the participants could choose what level of electric shock to give, which known as self-decision condition, the obedience rate is 0%. Which means, if only is there no authority’s power, people would not obey that over the claim. In the second experiment, of course, people have told of their responsibility for their actions. Therefore, we cannot ignore the factor that they might be avoided the responsibility of what they would cause by their own choice. But after all, these two experiments show very clear that authority plays pretty important role in the obedience.
Most recently, researcher Jerry M.
Burger did a partial replication of the Milgram experiment, in 2009. To avoid ethical problems, he replicated the instructions only up to the point at which participants first heard the learner's verbal protests (150 volts). He also screened out those who had taken more than two psychology courses or who expressed familiarity with the Milgram study. The participants were paid $50 and were told they could withdraw at any time. Of the Milgram participants who went beyond the 150 volt point, 79% went clear to the end (450 volts) so Burger concluded that his results could be roughly compared to Milgram's. The rate of obedience was only slightly lower than 45 years ago. Burger found that 30% stopped at or before 150 volts while 70% were willing to go on, as compared with the Milgram results in which 17.5% stopped at 150 volts and 82.5% went beyond this point. Like Milgram, Burger found no significant differences between men and women. However, the real surprise for Burger was what he called the "Modeled Resistance" scenario. This was comparable to the condition in which two alleged peers of the teacher quit at an early point. In the original Milgram experiment, only 10% went to 450 volts; in Burger's replication, modeled resistance made little difference: 45% of the men(5) and 31% (6) of the women stopped at 150 volts, but 54.5% (6) of the men and 68.4%(13) were willing to go on. This is one of the most …show more content…
chilling findings in the replications. Even having a resistant ally may not be enough to keep people from obeying destructive authority. (Jerry M. Burger, 2009)vi
These experiments stand as a dramatic demonstration of the power of authority and other situational factors in human behavior.
Most people do what they are told by authority. Most people who imagine that they are exceptions are not likely to be. Meanwhile, we also notice that the authority should not be the only reason for people’s obedience. Burger believes his study demonstrates not only the power of authority which leads to blind obedience, but also that certain situations normalize immoral behavior. Milgram also discovered that as auditory, visual, and physical contact with the learner increased, the maximum shock participants delivered decreased, especially when the teacher was required to physically touch the learner to administer the shocks. Obedience also dropped dramatically when the experimenter left the room, and issued his orders by phone: only 22 percent of subjects obeyed to the end when the experimenter was absent. Thus, we can sum up a conclusion that the power of authority to claim people's allegiance and obedience remains strong.However, we cannot deny that authority is not the only reason which affects people’s obedience. There ought to be many reasons, such as visual and physical contact as Milgram found; moral sense, as Burger mentioned; age, education, social class, as Foster argued. The replication experiments and similar studies are never been stopped since Milgram’s in 1961, and they would continue until they found out the
reasons of people’s obedience to authority.
Work Cited
Cherry, Kendra. "The Milgram Obedience Experiment, the Perils of Obedience." About. About.com, July 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. "About Milgram's Obedience Experiment." About Milgram's Obedience Experiment. Amy Kokot, Fall 2001. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
Mantell, David Mark. "The Potential for Violence in Germany." Journal of Social Issues 27.4 (1971): 101-12. Web
Kilham, Wesley, and Leon Mann. "Level of Destructive Obedience as a Function of Transmitter and Executant Roles in the Milgram Obedience Paradigm." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29.5 (1974): 696-702. Web.
Burger, Jerry M. "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?"American Psychologist 64.1 (2009): 1-11. Web.
ENG 111 M&W
Professor Hoke
11/21/2014
Obedience and the Authority
If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people, I think, would answer this question with an absolute No. However, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of the obedience experiments during the 1960s demonstrated surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.
Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths …show more content…
of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"
In the Milgram experiment the participants were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50. Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX." Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked. As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock. Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along: "Please continue."; "The experiment requires that you continue."; "It is absolutely essential that you continue."; "You have no other choice, you must go on." (Kendra Cherry)i
When Milgram predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock, however in the result, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks. Many critics suggested initially that the high obedience was due to the prestige of Yale University, and the participants'
presumed belief that no one at Yale would permit the actual harm of others (Baumrind 1964 and Orne 1962, as cited in Franzoi 300)ii. To examine this possibility, Milgram moved his experiment to a run-down site in Bridgeport, Connecticut, which had no obvious affiliations with Yale. Even though obedience decreased slightly, the difference was not significant: 48 percent of the participants delivered the maximum shock.
Is authority the only matter to people’s obedience? Were there any other reasons for it? To find out this, we have searched many other replication experiments, and did a comparison.
Here is a replication experiment was conducted by a German socialist, David Mark Mantell iii in West Germany in 1971. Using 101 men from the general population, this study divided participants into two groups. One is the same as Milgram’s, which took the experiment under the supervision of authority. This group, at last, reached to a baseline obedience level of 85%. The other one, a control group, which Milgram did not, where the participants could choose what level of electric shock to give (known as "self-decision condition"). At this condition Obedience was
0%.
Kilham and Mann, in 1974, did a replication of Milgram’s obedience experiment in Australia. In this research, both 63 male and 62 female, first year psychology students were used. This research added another level of chain of command compared to Milgram. The authority figure gave the command to another individual who passed it to the shock generator operator. In the "active obedience condition"(participants as execution) obedience was 28% overall (40% for males and
16% for females). In the control conditions, based on choice of level of shock and participant's responsibility for their actions, obedience was 0%. In the "passive obedience condition" (participant as the transmitter), where the participant was carrying the message to the shock generator operator, obedience was 54% (males 68%; females 40%), compared to 92.5% for Milgram.
The difference in results found in this experiment may be because of the different time of this research compared to Milgram's original experiment: A decade of campus unrest and anti-war demonstrations would have made some difference in student attitudes towards authority, whether governments, college administrators, or scientists (Kilham and Mann, 1974, p702)iv. And Foster (1997)v also argued that there are differences to Milgram in this research in age, education, and social class of the participants, and status of the experimenter.
Whether in this experiment or the former one they have one in very common, that is while the participants could choose what level of electric shock to give, which known as self-decision condition, the obedience rate is 0%. Which means, if only is there no authority’s power, people would not obey that over the claim. In the second experiment, of course, people have told of their responsibility for their actions. Therefore, we cannot ignore the factor that they might be avoided the responsibility of what they would cause by their own choice. But after all, these two experiments show very clear that authority plays pretty important role in the obedience.
Most recently, researcher Jerry M.
Burger did a partial replication of the Milgram experiment, in 2009. To avoid ethical problems, he replicated the instructions only up to the point at which participants first heard the learner's verbal protests (150 volts). He also screened out those who had taken more than two psychology courses or who expressed familiarity with the Milgram study. The participants were paid $50 and were told they could withdraw at any time. Of the Milgram participants who went beyond the 150 volt point, 79% went clear to the end (450 volts) so Burger concluded that his results could be roughly compared to Milgram's. The rate of obedience was only slightly lower than 45 years ago. Burger found that 30% stopped at or before 150 volts while 70% were willing to go on, as compared with the Milgram results in which 17.5% stopped at 150 volts and 82.5% went beyond this point. Like Milgram, Burger found no significant differences between men and women. However, the real surprise for Burger was what he called the "Modeled Resistance" scenario. This was comparable to the condition in which two alleged peers of the teacher quit at an early point. In the original Milgram experiment, only 10% went to 450 volts; in Burger's replication, modeled resistance made little difference: 45% of the men(5) and 31% (6) of the women stopped at 150 volts, but 54.5% (6) of the men and 68.4%(13) were willing to go on. This is one of the most …show more content…
chilling findings in the replications. Even having a resistant ally may not be enough to keep people from obeying destructive authority. (Jerry M. Burger, 2009)vi
These experiments stand as a dramatic demonstration of the power of authority and other situational factors in human behavior.
Most people do what they are told by authority. Most people who imagine that they are exceptions are not likely to be. Meanwhile, we also notice that the authority should not be the only reason for people’s obedience. Burger believes his study demonstrates not only the power of authority which leads to blind obedience, but also that certain situations normalize immoral behavior. Milgram also discovered that as auditory, visual, and physical contact with the learner increased, the maximum shock participants delivered decreased, especially when the teacher was required to physically touch the learner to administer the shocks. Obedience also dropped dramatically when the experimenter left the room, and issued his orders by phone: only 22 percent of subjects obeyed to the end when the experimenter was absent. Thus, we can sum up a conclusion that the power of authority to claim people's allegiance and obedience remains strong.However, we cannot deny that authority is not the only reason which affects people’s obedience. There ought to be many reasons, such as visual and physical contact as Milgram found; moral sense, as Burger mentioned; age, education, social class, as Foster argued. The replication experiments and similar studies are never been stopped since Milgram’s in 1961, and they would continue until they found out the
reasons of people’s obedience to authority.
Work Cited
Cherry, Kendra. "The Milgram Obedience Experiment, the Perils of Obedience." About. About.com, July 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. "About Milgram's Obedience Experiment." About Milgram's Obedience Experiment. Amy Kokot, Fall 2001. Web. 23 Nov. 2014.
Mantell, David Mark. "The Potential for Violence in Germany." Journal of Social Issues 27.4 (1971): 101-12. Web
Kilham, Wesley, and Leon Mann. "Level of Destructive Obedience as a Function of Transmitter and Executant Roles in the Milgram Obedience Paradigm." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29.5 (1974): 696-702. Web.
Burger, Jerry M. "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?"American Psychologist 64.1 (2009): 1-11. Web.