The results of the experiment were very surprising. Prior to the study, Milgram had described the experiment to 110 psychiatrists, college students and middle-class adults, and asked how far they thought the participants would go. They predicted that many would disobey by around 135 volts, and that only an extremely small proportion would actually continue to administer shocks beyond 300 volts and to the 450-volt level. However, it was found that all participants went to at least 300 volts, with 65 per cent continuing to the end and giving shocks of 450 volts.
From the findings of this original experiment and the systematic variations of it (also conducted by Milgram), we are able to consider the contributions it has made to our knowledge about social behaviour and attempt to answer the question of what caused the participants to obey.
Four main explanations for the behaviour seen in the study have been put forward. The first of these is the presence of legitimate authority. In this case, the experimenter was seen as such, presented in a lab-coat for increased authenticity. It has been suggested that we feel obligated to those in power because we respect their credentials and assume they know what they are doing. In a variation of the experiment, the experimenter left the room and another subject who had been assigned to a clerical role (a confederate) assumed control. In this situation 80 per cent of the teachers refused to comply fully and most protested. Also, the prestigious reputation of Yale University also had an influence on levels of obedience, findings showing that when the experiment was moved to run-down inner-city office building, obedience levels dropped to 47.5 per cent. It has been argued that the laboratory situation in which Milgram’s study took place bears little resemblance to real-life situations in which obedience is required. However the results from a study by Hofling et al (1966, as cited in Myers, D, 1996) show that ‘blind obedience’ to an authority figure could readily occur in real life. The study took place in a hospital situation, and involved 22 nurses. The nurses were asked by an unknown physician, over the telephone, to administer an obvious overdose of a drug – complying with this order would involve breaking several hospital rules. Despite this, it was found that all but one of the nurses obeyed without delay, and when interviewed afterwards all the nurses said that they had been asked to do this type of thing before and that doctors became annoyed if they refused.
Secondly, the emotional distance of the victim has been put forward as a determining factor - if individuals do not feel close to those they victimise responsibility is diffused. When the learner could not be seen by the teacher and heard no complaints, nearly all obeyed calmly to the end. However, when the learner was placed in the same room as the teacher, obedience levels dropped to 40 per cent. Also, when the teacher had to force the learner’s hand onto the plate to receive the shock, only 30 per cent continued to 450 volts. This has consequences for the real world – we are now living in an age in which we are able to kill from great distances due to the development of technology and nuclear warfare. In combat with an enemy they can see, many soldiers will not aim or fire. However, this disobedience is rarely seen among those ordered to kill by means of the more distant aircraft weapons.
A third factor to be considered is that of gradual commitment – the experiment started off with fairly trivial shocks, but once they had committed themselves to shocking they found it difficult to decide when to stop as each voltage increment was fairly small. This is known as the ‘foot-in-the-door effect’ and can be explained by the desire of people to appear consistent. Real-world relevance can also be seen here, in the return of the use of torture. The training of torturers involves a gradual escalation in the severity of act performed – for example they may first be assigned to guard prisoners, then to take part in arrests, then to hit prisoners, then to observe torture and finally to practice it themselves.
Lastly is the issue of responsibility. Participants attributed responsibility of their actions to the person in authority, the experimenter. Milgram argued that at this level, people mindlessly accept the orders of the person seen as responsible in the situation – participants’ saw themselves as merely ‘doing what they were told’. This behaviour is thought to stem from the socialisation process in which we are trained to be obedient to those in authority.
The ethical issues arising from Milgram’s experiments, however, have been considered by many to outweigh the importance of the above findings and contributions to our knowledge of social behaviour. Firstly the principles of informed consent and deception are important factors in ethical research. In the case of Milgram’s experiment, participants did not know the true purpose of the study and so were unable to give informed consent. However, deception was an essential part of the experiment and it would not have worked without it – the question is whether it was justifiable or not. The question of how free Milgram’s participants were also arises – although they were technically free to do whatever they wanted it was never made clear to them that they could terminate their involvement in the study whenever they wished. In fact, as seen above, many were told by the experimenter “you have no other choice, you must go on”. Another important issue is that of the potential psychological damage participants might have incurred. Many participants, as recorded by Milgram himself, were obviously highly stressed and sweated, stuttered and trembled. Furthermore participants’ self esteem may have been damaged from learning that they had been willing to administer potentially lethal shocks, and feelings of stupidity and being ‘used’ may have arisen from the deception. Participants’ willingness and likelihood of trusting psychologists and those in authority were also affected - in response to this Milgram replied that he thought this would be favourable if it induced scepticism towards this kind of inhumane authority!
In Milgram’s defence, after each experiment careful debriefing sessions were held in which the reasons for deception were explained and the true purpose of the study was revealed. This was to reassure the obedient participants that their behaviour was completely normal, and reassure the disobedient participants that their behaviour was actually socially desirable.
Moreover, a questionnaire distributed to participants after the study took place revealed that 84 per cent were glad they had been involved and claimed it had been a beneficial experience; 74 per cent said they had learned something of personal importance, with only 1.3 per cent reporting negative feelings. In addition to this, 40 participants who were interviewed by a university psychiatrist one year after the study showed no evidence of emotional harm attributable to the study.
One especially positive outcome of Milgram’s experiments is the part they have played in increasing the awareness among psychologists of what consists acceptable treatment of participants. This has in turn led to the formulation of ethical guidelines to be used in research.
Milgram’s study, although conducted in the 1960’s (since which many societal changes have taken place), still holds relevance to contemporary life in Britain. The investigation of obedience as a factor in socially acceptable behaviour is still of great interest today, and its importance can bee seen as widely pervading. It is nearly impossible to imagine a civilization in which obedience is not required – it would almost certainly result in a breakdown of social order. The police are there to uphold this social order, and to disobey social rules can result in harsh punishment. Along with the examples of war, torture and Hofling’s (1966) nurses’ experiment cited earlier in the essay, another area to be considered is the hierarchy integral to all institutions and workplaces, where obedience to superiors is required. If employees meticulously questioned and negotiated orders, many organisations would grind to a halt. With regards to educational institutions, a key factor in the educational process is that the pupil should be obedient to the teacher. If class discipline breaks down, the education process suffers and disobedient/disruptive pupils have to be excluded.
The rise in the level of education of the population and the improved quality of this education in more recent years has been responsible for a decline in blind obedience. Once children have been taught to ask questions rather than learn items by rote, then the seeds of future disobedience have been sown. Teachers and governments now have to convince an increasingly sceptical audience that obedience is necessary – and they have to produce reasons for this and accept that disobedience cannot be rectified by simply invoking superior social status and authority.
To conclude, although much controversy has come out of Milgram’s experiments, it has resulted in some very important findings – no one predicted that the level of obedience demonstrated by the participants would be so high. Many people would expect those participants who went all the way to the 450-volt shock level to be cruel, aggressive people, but repeated experiments in many different cultures and on many different people have all yielded similar results. These results have forced us to ask questions about what it is that caused the observed obedience, with analyses of these being of great importance in explaining and understanding the ‘crimes of obedience’ that have persisted in modern times. Studies such as Milgram’s demonstrate that even ‘ordinary’ people are capable of cruelty in certain situations, and can be pressured to go against their own conscience. Therefore although such a study would never be allowed to take place today due to ethical considerations, I believe the findings of Milgram’s study have been of great significance and it was rightfully conducted.
References:
Chryssochoou, X. (2004). Cultural Diversity – Its Social Psychology. U.K: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Cardwell, M, Clark, L & Meldrum, C. (2000). Psychology for A Level. U.K: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.
Hogg, M & Vaughan, G. (2002). Social Psychology. Gosport, U.K: Pearson Education Ltd.
Moghaddam, F. (1998). Social Psychology – Exploring Universals Across Cultures. U.S.A: W.H.Freeman and Company.
Myers, D.G. (1996). Social Psychology. U.S.A: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
